. 


Poe Lan re ah O8. 
pete tease 


u 
ta 
3 


a 


armen pens - 
seve #35 . f+ Sinton 
fede gshed 

arte aia 

® an 


ites 
sees tee aa: 


a 


© 


. to 4 st > 
ist athagst pel p as isa) os 
Sti Y piseeteteahictatd 
: Bet ; Ripe tmrrey 

i i ety 
wenee 


. <3? - : oe ‘ ; * sh ce Bnet 
apart erie Sonia he aglers regen fi . oath: ee ; ante 


UST uae Poe aint ~ + mae 4 pap sdet Latent lhe 
Ties ern sseretwist, 


Nee ren 
Siege st: 


i 


need 


Sennen 
irr.) 


% 


eR 


ea 


Ame Siero 


sip 


seis) hind seks 
Ltere ses 


Tet beayecin 
rinsetah pany 


Soneoratesmras teenie 
passer. bors Scaaicy 





HT 431 .F8 1926 
Fry, C.. Luther 5b. 1894. 
American villagers 





Sk + Ye - 


Mest 
Sees 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/americanvillagerOOfryc 


Institute of Social and Religious Research 
AMERICAN VILLAGE STUDIES 
Edmund deS. Brunner, Director 





AMERICAN VILLAGERS 
C. LUTHER FRY 


The Institute of Social and Religious Re- 
search, which is responsible for this publication, 
was organized in January, 1921, as the Com- 
mittee on Social and Religious Surveys. It 
conducts and publishes studies and surveys and 
promotes conferences for their consideration. 
The Institute’s aim is to combine the scientific 
method with the religious motive. It co- 
operates with other social and religious agen- 
cles, but is itself an independent organization. 


The directorate of the Institute is composed 
of: John R. Mott, Chairman; Raymond B. 
Fosdick, Treasurer; Kenyon L. Butterfield, Re- 
cording Secretary; James L. Barton, W. H. P. 
Faunce and Paul Monroe. Galen M. Fisher ts 
Executive Secretary. The offices are at 370 
Seventh Avenue, New York City. 


ee , , th — — 
y * ‘i ijt r ae ray fir ~ 
or * 


BY ; 
C, LUTHER ’FRY 


AUTHOR OF “DIAGNOSING THE RURAL CHURCH,” ETC. 


With an Appendix on the Social Composition of 
the Rural Population of the United States 
by Luther Sheeleigh Cressman 


NEW 59 YORK 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


AME ee » 

WERITGA Nia) 4 

y LG awe 
ILLAGERS NLL OGICAL St \ Ww 


j 


COPYRIGHT, 1926, 
BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 
bb? EBs 
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FOREWORD 


Discontent is widespread among rural populations. As to its 
causes opinions differ; but the fact remains that rural life is not 
yielding the relative satisfaction it once gave. Thus there 1s 
today a marked tendency for rural people to move cityward, 
while many of those who remain behind are becoming class- 
conscious and dissatisfied. Both of these trends are of the 
greatest social significance. 

During the last generation it was rather generally taken for 
granted that the conflict between Capital and Labor was the 
outstanding economic issue of modern society; but reflection 
makes it apparent that the discontent of agricultural people may 
be as serious a menace to the peace and prosperity of the 
nation as is the discontent of industrial wage earners. 

As a contribution toward the solution of the rural problem 
in the United States, the Institute of Social and Religious Re- 
search decided to make a somewhat elaborate study of the 
economic, social and religious conditions in agricultural villages. 

For purposes of this investigation a village was defined as a 
place whose population ranged from 250 to 2,500, and an agri- 
cultural village as one that was located in a strictly farming area 
and that acted as a service station to the inhabitants of the 
surrounding countryside. 

The survey plan of the Institute’s Village Study called for 
the sending of trained investigators, in teams of two, to spend 
from two to three weeks in studying at first hand the actual 
conditions in each of 140 villages. The results of this phase of 
the study will appear in a separate volume. 

But in addition to its field studies the Institute not only 
assembled the more important published material about villages, 
but also secured access to hitherto unpublished data about them 
in the files of the United States Census Bureau. This latter 
phase of the study was solely in the hands of Dr. C. Luther Fry, 
Director of the Bureau of Standards of the Institute and Asso- 


ciate Director of the American Village Study, at whose sug- 
Vv 


vi FOREWORD 


gestion the examination of the unpublished Census data was 
originally undertaken. His investigations proved so fruitful and 
significant that it was decided to publish the results as a separate 
volume. 

Dr. Fry’s book necessarily deals with village problems in 
statistical terms; but I believe the reader will share my own 
feeling that he has brought to bear on his subject not only a 
singularly acute analytical sense, but also a keen appreciation of 
the warm human story that lies behind the statistical materials. 


EDMUND DES. BRUNNER. 


AUTHOR’S NOTE 


The reliability of the conclusions drawn from this study 1s, 
of course, limited by the fact that the available data about villages 
are meager. But it is believed that the materials are sufficient 
for reliable first approximations to the truth; and it is hoped 
that the conclusions may not only prove of interest, but that they 
may encourage more intensive studies of villages than have here- 
tofore been undertaken. 


It is not possible to mention all of the people who cooperated 
in this study, but the author wants to thank Mr. Robert W. 
McCulloch, of the Institute of Social and Religious Research, 
who edited the book and assisted in organizing the presentation. 


Wed ay 





CHAPTER 


Vil 


CONTENTS 


FOREWORD 
AuTHor’s NOTE . 4 


PuRPOSE AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 

How Many VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 

ARE VILLAGE PopuULATIONS DECLINING? ; ; 

Wuat Kinp or PEeorLte Live IN AGRICULTURAL 
VILLAGES? ’ é ; ‘ : 

Wuat Do ViLLacGERS Do For A LIVING? . i 


Wuat ARE THE DISTINGUISHING PECULIARITIES 
OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS? 


Wuat FuNcTIONS Do VILLAGERS PERFORM? . : 


APPENDICES 


ANALYSIS OF THE “RURAL” AND THE “URBAN” 
PopuLATION FIGURES FOR CERTAIN NEw ENG- 
LAND STATES AS GIVEN IN 1920 CENSUS 

CLASSIFICATION OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 
Workers ACCORDING TO THEIR “SoctaL-Eco- 
NOMIC” STATUS ‘ : : 

Ture SoctiAL COMPOSITION OF THE RuRAL Popu- 
LATION OF THE UNITED STATES, BY LUTHER 
SHEELEIGH CRESSMAN . : : : , 


112 


ty 


135 


141 


ttt 
rf Pa 
wk | 
rt i) 


a) 


. 
ne 
9 
a 7 
a 
by 

i 





TABLE NUMBER 


{ 


IT 


Ill 


Vil 


Vill 


XI 


LIST OF TABLES 


VILLAGE PopuLATIONS OF 12 STATES AS 
ListED BY THE RAND McNattiy ATLAS 
AND BY Cram’s Attias, 1920 


PROPORTION OF VILLAGES THAT ARE INCOR- 
PORATED, BY Divisions, 1920 


VILLAGES FOR Eacu 100 Square MILES OF 
ArEA, BY Divisions, 1920 . 


PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL POPULATION 
Tuat RESIDES IN VILLAGES, BY DIVISIONS, 
1920 ‘ ; f , 


PROPORTION OF THE RurRAL POPULATION 
(Exctupinc New Encianp) Tuat RE- 
SIDES IN VILLAGES, BY Divisions, 1920 


INCREASE IN NUMBER AND IN POPULATION 
or INCORPORATED VILLAGES, 1900 To 1920 


PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF VILLAGE AND OF 
TotTaL Popuiations, By Divisions, 1900 
Fo 1920. 


PERCENTAGE INCREASE BY DECADES OF IN- 
CORPORATED VILLAGE AND OF TOTAL 
PoruLaTIoNs, BY Divisions, 1900 To 1920 


PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF THE POPULATIONS 
IN VILLAGES AND IN THE REMAINING 
Rurav Area, By Divisions, 1900 to 1920 


PERCENTAGE INCREASE BY DECADES OF THE 
PopuLATIONS IN INCORPORATED VILLAGES 
AND IN THE REMAINING RuRAL AREA, BY 
Divisions, 1900 to 1920 . d , , 


RATE OF PoPpULATION GrowTH BY DECADES 
OF THE PLaces THaT IN 1900 WERE (A) 
INCORPORATED VILLAGES AND (B) ReE- 
MAINING RuRAL AREA, BY Divisions, 1900 
To 1920. 


Xi 


PAGE 


28 


53 


Ou 


35 


36 


oo 


40 


43 


45 


46 


48 


xii 
TABLE NUMBER 


XII 


XIII 


XIV 


XV 


XVI 


XVII 


XVIII 


XIX 


XX 


XXI 


XXIT 


XXIII 


LIST OF TABLES 


RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES 
oF Piaces THat IN 1900 WeErE (A) 
INCORPORATED VILLAGES AND (B) CITIEs, 
By Divisions, 1900 to 1920 ; 

RATE OF PoPpULATION GROWTH BY DECADES 
oF PiacEes THat IN 1900 WERE (A) 
CITIES OF VARYING S1zE, (B) INcor- 
PORATED VILLAGES, AND (C) REMAINING 
RurAL AREA, 1900 To 1920 7 

RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES 
oF Praces THat IN 1900 WerE (A) 
SMALL, (B) Mepium AND (C) Larce In- 
CORPORATED VILLAGES, BY Divisions, 1900 
To 1920. 2 : : : ; 

PROPORTION OF INCORPORATED VILLAGES OF 
1900 TuHat Hap (A) Growine, (B) 
STATIONARY OR (C) DeEcLtininc PopuLa- 
TIONS, BY Divisions, 1900 Tro 1920 . 

Cotor, NATIVITY AND PARENTAGE OF AGRI- 
CULTURAL VILLAGE POPULATIONS, By DI- 
visions, 1920 

PLACE OF BirTH OF Roane Ba va 
LAGERS, BY Divisions, 1920 


AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF VILLAGERS, BY SEX 
AND BY Divisions, 1920 

MarITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGERS 15 are: 
OF AGE AND Over, By SEX AND BY DtI- 
VISIONS, 1920 t : 4 : 

Home OWNERSHIP AND S1IZE oF FAMILY 
AMONG VILLAGERS, BY Divisions, 1920 . 

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF VILLAGERS BE- 
TWEEN 7 AND 21 YEARS OF AGE, BY SEX 
AND BY Divisions, 1920 ; 

ILLITERATES 10 YEARS oF AGE AND OVER 
IN VILLAGES BY SEX, CoLor AND Nativ- 

ITY, AND BY Divisions, 1920 


AVERAGE POPULATION OF VILLAGES, BY 
Reaions, 1920 


PAGE 


49 


51 


53 


55 


59 
60 


62 


62 


63 


65 


68 


TABLE NUMBER 


XXIV 


XXV 


XXVI 


XXVIII 


XXVIII 


XXIX 


XXX 


XXXI 


XXXIT 


XXXII 


XXXIV 


LIST OF TABLES 


COMPOSITION OF VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE, 
BY Recions, 1920 


ProporTION OF MALES AND FEMALES 10 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER GAINFULLY EM- 
PLOYED IN VILLAGES, BY AGE-GROUPS AND 
BY Recions, 1920 


Proportion oF NEGROES AND WuitTes 10 
YEARS OF AGE AND OvER GAINFULLY EM- 
PLOYED IN SOUTHERN VILLAGES, BY SEX 
AND AGE-Groupes, 1920 : A Y 


OccuPATIONS OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 
MALES AND FEMALES 10 YEARS oF AGE 
AND OVER IN VILLAGES, BY Recions, 1920 


OccuUPATIONS OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 
MALES AND FEMALES IN VILLAGES OF 
VARYING SIZE, BY Recions, 1920 


OccuPATIONS OF NEGROES AND WHITES 10 
YEARS OF AGE AND OvER EMPLOYED IN 
SOUTHERN VILLAGES, BY SEX, 1920 . 


SocraL-ECONOMIC STATUS OF GAINFULLY 
EMPLOYED VILLAGERS 10 YEARS OF AGE 
AND OVER, BY SEX AND BY ReEctons, 1920 


SoctAL-Economic Status oF NEGROES 
AND OF Wuites 10 YEARS OF AGE AND 
OvER EMPLOYED IN SOUTHERN VILLAGES, 
BY SEX, 1920 


DETAILED OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS OF 
GAINFULLY EmpLoyep Mates 10 YEAarS 
oF AGE AND OVER IN VILLAGES, BY 
Reaions, 1920 . 


DETAILED OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS OF 
GAINFULLY EmMpLoYyeD FEemaes’ 10 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER IN VILLAGES, 
BY Recions, 1920 Ps 


CoMPOSITION OF MeEpIUuM-SIZE CITy AND 
VILLAGE PopuLaTIons, By Recions, 1920 


xiii 
PAGE 


70 


75 


76 


77 


80 


81 


86 


88 


89 


91 


oS 


xiv 
TABLE NUMBER 


XXXV 


XXXVI 


XXXVIT 


XXXVITI 


XXXIX 


XL 


XLI 


XLII 


XLII 


XLIV 


LIST OF TABLES 


OccupaTIONS OF MeEpIUM-S1ZE CITY AND 
VILLAGE PoPpuULATIONS GAINFULLY Em- 
PLOYED 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY 
Sex AND BY Recions, 1920 


SoctaL-EconomMic Stratus OF MEeEpIUuM- 
S1zE CITY AND VILLAGE POPULATIONS 
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 10 YEARS OF AGE 
AND OVER, BY SEX AND BY Recions, 1920 


CoMPOSITION OF THE POPULATIONS OF SPECI- 
FIED CiTiEs, 1920 


OccuUPATIONS AND SOCIAL-ECONOMIC STATUS 
OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 10 YEARS 
oF AGE AND OVER, BY SEX, IN SPECIFIED 
Cities, 1920. 


COMPOSITION OF OPEN- Chua AND VIL- 
LAGE PopuLATIONS, BY Recions, 1920 


DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) 
Mepium-Size City, AND (C) OPEN- 
CouNTRY PoPULATIONS ON SPECIFIED 
Points, By Recions, 1920 


DIFFERENCES AmoncG (A) VILLAGE, (B) 
MeEDIUM-SIZE City, AND (C) OPEN- 
Country PopuLations IN AGE-DISTRIBU- 
TION, BY SEX AND BY Recions, 1920 


DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) 
MeEDIUM-S1zE City, AND (C) OPEN- 
CouNTRY PoPULATIONS IN THE RATIO OF 
CHILDREN UNDER 10 To Eacu 100 Mar- 
RIED WoMEN 15 To 45 YEARS OF AGE, BY 
Recions, 1920 


DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) 
URBAN, AND (C) OpEN-CountrRY PoPULa- 
TIONS ON SPECIFIED POINTS, BY a 
1920 


DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) Piece (B) 
UrBAN, AND (C) Open-Country Popu- 
LATIONS IN AGE-DISTRIBUTION, BY SEX 
AND BY Recrons, 1920 


PAGE 


96 


oF 


99 


100 


102 


105 


106 


107 


109 


110 


TABLE NUMBER 


XLV 


XLVI 


XLVII 


XLVIII 


XLIX 


Pek 


LET 


LIV 


LV 


LIST OF TABLES 


DISTRIBUTION OF PROFESSIONAL CLASSES IN 
VILLAGES AND MeEpIuM-SizE CITIES, BY 
SEX AND BY Recions, 1920 


DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIED PROFESSIONAL 
CLASSES IN VILLAGES AND MeEpIuM-SIzE 
Cities, BY SEX AND By Recions, 1920 


PROPORTION OF VILLAGE ScHooL Pupits 
TuHat LIvE IN THE OPEN ara BY 
Recions, 1920 


CLERGYMEN TO Eacu 1,000 oF THE Peat. 
LATION IN VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE AND 
IN Mepium-SizeE Cities, sy Recions, 1920 


Lawyers To Eacu 1,000 oF tHe Poputa- 
TION IN VILLAGES AND IN MepiuM-S1zE 
Cities, By Recions, 1920 . : : 


PuysiciaANs To Eacu 1,000 or tue Popv- 
LATION IN VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE AND 
IN Mepium-S1zeE Cirttiss, sy Recions, 1920 


AVERAGE SIZE OF THE VILLAGE AND THE 
Opren-CounTRY PopuLaTions In 140 
VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, BY SIZE AND BY 
Recions, 1920 


Puysictans To Eacu 1,000 oF THE Been 
LATION IN VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND IN 
MepiuM-Size Cities, sy Recions, 1920 


Dentists TO Eacu 1,000 oF tue Poputa- 
TION IN (A) VILLAGES, (B) VILLAGE 
COMMUNITIES .AND (C) Meprum-Size 
Cities, By Recions, 1920 . 


Nurses To Eacu 1,000 oF tHE PopuLation 
IN (A) Vittaces, (B) Vittace Com- 
MUNITIES, AND (C) Meprum-Size Cirigs, 
BY ReEcions, 1920 


Mintimum NuMBER oF Persons ENGAGED 
IN THE DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS IN VIL- 
LAGES OF VARYING SiZE, 1920 


XV 
PAGE 


113 


114 


116 


118 


119 


121 


1272 


es" 


124 


io 


126 





* dhs 


+ > ' 
' 4 ,.# us 
4 
f } ay iY) * 
} ite 
a 
} &)F P 
‘ 
j , 
\ 
- 
zx 
'? iy 
Ais ' 
; 
LJ 
J 
he ; ; 
r 
‘ 
‘ 
¥- 
“ 
\ “ 
‘ 
r 
- .) ‘ 
’ 
Py 
e 
4 ‘ 
' 
a 
: ‘ 
' ’ 
‘ 
' y 
. > 
: 
- 
4 
. i j 
4 
‘ 
be" ul 
> 
| 7, ’ #\ 
’ / 
: 
t 
’ b of j 
f 
at) 
' 
! 
’ 
[o } A 
i” - 0 4 
: ' J ya 


‘ 7) a Fay a 
; te ’ epi rf} 
is ” . ¥ he 


cana od 
ah Ny 


ce és A riwsy Ms 


Oe ian ft 
TAS ae | 
me ‘i “i 


ry i\ ‘ 

edt 
y 

y i. 


DIAGRAM 
NUMBER 


I 


II 


Ill 


IV 


VII 


DIAGRAMS 


Map Locating THE INCORPORATED VILLAGES IN 
THE UNITED STATES 


AVERAGE NUMBER oF ATLAS VILLAGES FOR Eacu 
100 Square Mixes or AREA IN StatEs GROUPED 
BY Density oF Popu.ation, 1920 


PoPpULATION GRowTH oF Paces TuHat 1n 1900 
WerE (A) Cities, (B) IncorPoratTeD ViL- 
LAGES, AND (C) Remaininc Rurax Arga, 1900 
TO LIZO mA 


Map LocaTtinec THE 177 AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 


NuMBER oF Mates To Eacu 100 Fema.es IN VIL- 
LAGES, BY Divisions, 1920 


NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNpeErR 10 Years or AGE 
TO Eacu 100 Marriep WomEN 15 To 45 YEars 
OF AGE IN VILLAGES AND OpEN CouNTRY, BY 
Recions, 1920 


NumBer oF Puysicrans To Eacu 1,000 or THE 
POPULATION IN CITIES AND IN VILLAGE Com- 
MUNITIES, BY Recions, 1920 


PAGE 


103 


123 


art 
i La tor ue 
ns ALR 

Ca eet . 


a Ai a ye é Knee OY My dy, | 
; i deow ; 

a ay eee a be Wang af Af ey ty 
7 My rn + a at 





AMERICAN VILLAGERS 





Mea yayte:. 

- A - = ;: 5 NOP eae Aa as yi 

§ “Ss iu i re ‘ ta baked © Bee - ial Gy 4 j 
, Lt Tig ae ks Re 4 eee #, ae ebay 


a 
>a 
i 
‘ 1 
P ‘ 
i : ‘ 
oi? ’ 
om... i 
he | ] 
es | 
” FoR ia ’ 
es yas . ; 
; 
1 Se yi eae pik f 
Bik: ; Tee 7 } oe ‘ aw ee =} 
a (Pratik ey 1 ree. 
a nh PS, SPY: ‘i ao ut 7? « ¢, ue ches 


CHAPTER I 
PURPOSE AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 


In this book an attempt is made to answer these funda- 
mental questions about the villagers of the United States: How 
many villagers are there? Are village populations declining? 
What kind of people live in villages? What do villagers do 
for a living? What are the distinguishing peculiarities of vil- 
lage populations? What functions do villagers perform? 

A study of this sort is important for many reasons. If for 
no other reason, such an inquiry would be justified because of 
the large number of people living in villages. While individually 
they may seem insignificant, collectively villages are important. 
The Census of 1920 shows that the number of incorporated 
places having fewer than 2,500 inhabitants is approximately 
12,900, and that their combined populations aggregate nearly 
nine millions. When it is remembered that these figures do not 
make allowances for the large numbers of people living in un- 
incorporated places, it becomes clear that village populations con- 
stitute not only a large fraction of America’s rural population, 
but of her total population as well. 

More important, however, than the number of village people 
are the many pressing rural problems that are intimately tied 
up with village life. The relations between villagers on the 
one hand and open-country inhabitants on the other, constitute 
an important rural problem which a study of villages should help 
to clarify. It is a matter of common knowledge that contacts 
between villager and open-country dweller are often characterized 
by friction and hostility. To a considerable extent, the history 
of the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota has been one of 
struggle for power between farmers and villagers. A study 
of villages should help to reveal some of the causes of this 
antagonism. 

A village study should throw light upon the problem of rural 


migrations. This analysis shows, for example, that village popu- 
21 


22 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


lations are increasing more rapidly than those of the open coun- 
try; which means, of course, that villagers are becoming a more 
and more important element of the nation’s rural population. 

In addition to these wider social considerations, a knowledge 
of village conditions should be of value to different groups, in- 
cluding those engaged in manufacturing and in business, because 
the village is the place where farmers, as well as villagers, buy 
and sell. Protestant churchmen need such knowledge because a 
disproportionately large number of their churches are located in 
villages. Educators should be interested, because a large pro- 
portion of the children of both the open country and the villages 
attend village schools. Indeed, villages provide the only avail- 
able high-school facilities for approximately half the nation, since 
open-country as well as village populations depend upon them 
almost entirely. 

In short, villages are eminently worth studying because of 
their strategic location within the rural area. A village is not 
a group apart; rather it is a radiating center that powerfully 
influences not only the lives of its own inhabitants, but the lives 
of all who dwell round about it as well. Thus a knowledge of 
villages is an indispensable key to an understanding of our rural 
problem. 


IGNORANCE ABOUT VILLAGES 


Despite their importance, little is known about villages. This, 
indeed, was one of the main reasons for studying them. There 
is no other population group of equal size about which so little 
information is available. Many public and private agencies have 
helped to collect large bodies of facts about cities, while certain 
studies of the Department of Agriculture, and the special analysis 
of “farm populations” included as a part of the 1920 Census, have 
furnished important facts about our distinctly agricultural in- 
habitants. The amount of information about villages, however, 
1s very meager. 

Although the Census collects its data for each incorporated 
place, and tabulates this material in detail for metropolitan 
centers, the amount of detailed tabulation diminishes with the 
diminishing size of the place, until for incorporated places hay- 
ing fewer than 2,500 inhabitants, the Census volumes furnish 


PURPOSE AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 23 


only a single figure—the total population of each place. Need- 
less to say, this is very scanty material with which to work. Of 
course, the Census provides a rather minute analysis of the coun- 
try’s “rural” population; but, since this term, as used by the 
Government, includes the inhabitants of all unincorporated areas * 
as well as those of incorporated places having fewer than 2,500 
inhabitants, there are grave doubts whether these figures do not 
really misrepresent conditions in villages. Certain rural experts 
are coming more and more to feel that village and open-country 
dwellers differ so widely that the Census term “rural,” which 
combines both groups under the one head, has little significance 
for either population group. One of the objectives of the present 
study was to ascertain whether this belief is well founded. 

The principal sources of information about villages, aside 
from the Census, are a small number of first-hand studies made 
by individual investigators. However, the usefulness of these 
studies is limited, because of the small number of places covered 
and because the different investigators have used various methods 
of research, with the result that the findings of one study are not 
comparable with those of the others. 

Since the Census Bureau has in its files at Washington a 
separate enumeration of each incorporated village, the Institute 
was able, through the courtesy of Honorable William M. Steuart, 
Director of the Census, and Dr. Charles J. Galpin, in charge of 
the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, to secure access to hitherto unpublished facts 
about 177 villages. The facts secured by this special tabulation 
have already been presented in an Institute publication, A Census 
Analysis of American Villages. The primary purpose of the 
present book is to indicate the significance of the data already 
published in that volume. 


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 


Some of the more important findings of this study of 
American Villagers can be summarized as follows: 

1, There are in the United States approximately 18,000 

1 Unincorporated places that have 2,500 inhabitants or more are not classi- 

fied as “urban” because the Census does not secure separate enumerations for 


unincorporated places. Except in New England the number of such places is 
quite small, 


24 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


villages whose populations aggregate between twelve and a half 
and thirteen million. This means that nearly every eighth Ameri- 
can lives ina village. (Chapter II.) 

2. Villages are scattered over the country in much the same 
proportions as the population as a whole, the most notable ex- 
ception occurring in the Mountain division where the number 
of villages is disproportionately large. (Chapter II.) 

3. Contrary to general belief, village populations are in- 
creasing. From 1900 to 1920 villages actually increased in popu- 
lation more rapidly than the nation as a whole. (Chapter III.) 

4. Although village populations increased more slowly in 
the period 1910 to 1920 than in the previous ten-year period, 
nevertheless in both decades villagers increased several times more 
rapidly than the rest of the “rural” population. As a result, 
villagers are steadily becoming a more and more important ele- 
ment of the nation’s “rural” population. (Chapter III.) 

5. Agricultural villages, ie., villages located in distinctly 
farming areas and that act as service stations to inhabitants of 
the surrounding countryside, appear to be the most numerous 
type of village. (Chapter II.) 

6. A special tabulation of Census data about agricultural 
villages reveals that the composition and characteristics of their 
populations differ widely from region to region. National gen- 
eralizations about villages should, therefore, be made with great 
care. (Chapter IV.) 

7. Despite the fact that village populations vary widely from 
region to region, the “social-economic” status of the gainfully 
employed men in villages is much the same in the villages of 
the different regions. (Chapter V.) 

8. Even in agricultural villages the gainfully employed men 
engaged in manufacturing pursuits form the largest group. 
(Chapter V.) 

9. The inhabitants of middle western villages seem to be 
economically more prosperous than villagers in other regions. 
They have comparatively high proportions of home ownership 
and of young people attending school, and the rate of child labor 
is low. These facts point to a relatively high standard of living 
in the villages of the area, (Chapter IV.) 

10. Child labor in southern villages seems to be partly a 
result of economic pressure. In those villages the relative number 


PURPOSE AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 25 


of gainfully employed children under fourteen is comparatively 
high; but the proportion of gainfully employed old people also 
tends to be high. (Chapter V.) 

11. Villagers differ from city dwellers. They have higher 
proportions of native whites and decidedly larger numbers of old 
people. (Chapter VI.) 

12. On a number of important points village inhabitants 
differ at least as widely from open-country as from city dwellers. 
These data, therefore, raise the question whether the common 
practice of combining village and open-country populations under 
the one head “rural’’ is justifiable. (Chapter VI.) 

13. The medical services performed by villages are decidedly 
less adequate than those performed by cities. In proportion to 
the populations they serve, villages have fewer physicians and 
dentists than have cities, while more than half the villages studied 
have no trained nurses at all. (Chapter VII.) 


CHAPTER II 
HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 


The first topic to consider in any population problem is the 
number of people concerned. Unfortunately there are no official 
population figures for a large proportion of the American vil- 
lages, because the Federal Census does not attempt to secure 
separate enumerations for places that are unincorporated. For 
this reason, the populations of unincorporated villages cannot be 
accurately ascertained. It is possible, however, by the use of 
figures from unofficial sources as well as of Census data, to 
arrive at an estimate of the number of all villages and of their 
total population. This, therefore, is the purpose of the present 
discussion, in which an effort will also be made to indicate the 
way in which villages are distributed over the country. 

The Census makes no attempt to enumerate separately the 
populations of the unincorporated villages; nevertheless the re- 
turns it does make testify to the importance of the village problem. 
The 1920 data? for the entire country show that the number of 
incorporated places with fewer than 2,900 inhabitants is 12,858,? 
and that their total populations aggregate 8,97 1,549, 

But these incorporated centers are not all considered as 
“villages” for the purpose of the present study, because this term 
has been restricted by the Institute to places having from 250 to 
2,500 inhabitants, while still smaller centers, those having fewer 
than 250 inhabitants, have been defined as “hamlets.” On this 
basis, a reclassification of the 1920 Census data reveals that of 
the 12,858 incorporated rural places, 2,619 are hamlets whose 
populations total 461,890. Thus the number of incorporated 
villages is 10,239, and their aggregate population, 8,509,659—a 
million more than the entire population of New England, 

1 Fourteenth Census, Vol. I, Table XXXI, p. 50. 
2 Forty-eight incorporated Places whose populations are not known, have not 
been included in this figure, while Littleton, N. H., which is a village of 2,308, 


has been included although for some reason it was omitted from the total com- 
piled by the Census and presented in Table XXXI, Vol. I, Fourteenth Census. 
26 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 27 


Large as are the Census figures, they do not really give the 
country’s total village population, since they include only the 
inhabitants of incorporated places. Unincorporated centers are 
entirely omitted, yet it is a matter of common knowledge that the 
number of unincorporated villages is large. It is recognized that 
in certain states there are more of them than of places that are 
incorporated. Obviously, therefore, unincorporated places should 
be taken into account in an estimate of the nation’s total village 
population. 


ATLAS COUNT OF VILLAGES 


Because complete Census figures were not available, the In- 
stitute was compelled to turn to unofficial sources to ascertain the 
total population of American villages. Such a source is the Rand 
McNally Atlas, which attempts to publish the name and to give 
the population of not only every city and town in the United 
States, but of smaller centers as well. Here, then, is a basis for 
estimating the total number of both villages and villagers. 

Using the 1921 edition of this atlas, which gives population 
estimates as of 1920, the Institute counted all of the places rang- 
ing in size from 250 to 2,500. This computation disclosed that 
the Rand McNally Atlas lists no fewer than 18,381 villages, and 
that these have a total population of 12,858,521.° If correct, 
this estimate means that nearly one out of every eight Americans 
lives in a village, and that villagers constitute a quarter of the 
total “rural’’ population as defined by the Census, “rural’’ popu- 
lation being that in unincorporated areas and in incorporated 
places with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants. 

Before commenting further upon the significance of these 
figures, a word is necessary concerning their reliability. How 
accurate is the atlas? This is a difficult question to answer, but 
there are several reasons for thinking that it furnishes a reason- 
ably sound basis for estimating America’s total village popu- 
lation. So far as possible, the data in the Rand McNally Atlas 
are secured from official sources. Thus it happens that in the 
1921 edition of the atlas the populations of incorporated villages 
are taken directly from the 1920 Census. This means that the 


3 These figures supersede any previous estimate the Institute has made of the 
number of villages as of 1920 listed in the Rand McNally Atlas. 


28 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


number and size of only unincorporated villages are based upon 
unofficial counts. According to the atlas, the total number of 
unincorporated villages is 8,142 and their aggregate population 
is 4,348,862. 

On the face of it, the atlas count is quite convincing. The 
number of unincorporated villages is known to be large, so that 
the atlas enumeration seems reasonable, since it indicates that ap- 
proximately one-third of the country’s total village population is 
to be found in these villages. The atlas count also seems valid 
because it shows that the larger centers are the ones that are 
incorporated. The average size of all atlas villages is 700, which 
compares with 831 for those listed by the Census. This means 
that the average population of the unincorporated centers is 534, 
or 36 per cent. less than the figure for incorporated villages. 

The general reliability of the atlas count was further con- 
firmed by checking, in twelve widely scattered states, the Rand 
McNally count with similar figures furnished by Cram’s Atlas. 
This comparison is presented in Table I. 


TABLE I—VILLAGE POPULATIONS OF 12 STATES AS LISTED 
BY THE RAND McNALLY ATLAS AND BY CRAM’S ATLAS, 1920 


Villages 
Number Population 
State Rand Rand 
McNally Cram McNally Cram 
Ota lier rad wate Uh eh ue ot 7,785 8,282 5,501,586 5,820,221 
Pennsylvaitia ats.) hres 1,590 1,750 1,170,580 1,233,593 
UNG Wey Oise, tar ts a 1,108 1,262 731,358 918,050 
COTA SS etna tee ee ON eee 878 912 596,011 605,663 
Bilis PTR, RU eu ria eee 934 963 711,468 724,346 
MOWAT oie ai betak Hen ae 663 667 470,069 473,536 
Missotirs fae) eee y Bale hee 612 622 439,786 433,464 
redrein til eo al Ae eee Bae 457 467 311,172 314,266 
PLATAIA eee Meee er ke 388 432 271,160 289,681 
SOARO Hirt tle aes ati eee nee 146 159 92,355 98,603 
Waloradge 2206 ahs Ay na 190 206 131,497 137,608 
VWranlunctones ds. eta weed 299 308 191,769 196,513 
ASAT Orrin, fae 1 Da ge ye 520 534 384,361 394,898 


This table shows that the village figures given by the two 
atlases check very closely indeed. For every state but one the 
population total of the Rand McNally Atlas is more conserva- 
tive; but in only one state does it differ from Cram’s by as much 
as 10 per cent., while the average difference for both the number 
and the population of villages is roughly 6 per cent. 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 29 


Of course the mere fact that the two atlas counts closely cor- 
respond is not conclusive proof that the village populations of the 
United States are so large as the Rand McNally figure indicates, 
since both atlases may present somewhat overestimated totals. 
Even assuming a possible tendency toward exaggeration, it should 
not greatly distort the village estimates because the inclusion in 
the village estimates of unincorporated hamlets whose populations 
had optimistically been placed at 250 or more, would be partly 
compensated for by the exclusion from the rural group and the 
inclusion in the urban group of certain unincorporated villages 
whose population of actually less than 2,500 had been over- 
estimated. 

Moreover, it seems almost certain that some unincorporated 
villages have been entirely overlooked by the atlases. This fact 
would reduce still further any tendency for an atlas count to over- 
estimate the country’s village inhabitants. It is safe, therefore, 
to assume that the more conservative figures of the Rand 
McNally Atlas are reasonably correct, or in other words, that 
between twelve and a half and thirteen million Americans live 
in 18,000 villages. This is 12 per cent. of the entire population 
of the United States, while the number of individual places con- 
cerned is more than six times the total number of cities in the 
United States. 


DISTRIBUTION OF INCORPORATED VILLAGES 


Having arrived at an estimate of the total number of villages, 
it is important to know how they are distributed over the country. 
Diagram I actually locates each of the 10,239 incorporated vil- 
lages whose populations are separately listed by the Census. This 
diagram is enlightening even though unincorporated villages are 
omitted. It shows, for example, the concentration of incor- 
porated villages around many of the larger metropolitan centers. 
Most of the clusters of dots, particularly in New Jersey, Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio and Illinois, represent villages in the immediate 
vicinity of such large centers as New York, Chicago, Philadel- 
phia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. The diagram, therefore, makes 
it plain that an appreciably large number of incorporated villages 
are suburban to metropolitan centers. 

The majority of incorporated villages, however, appear to be 


$o}e1G powUup oy} Ur 
sose]IA peyetodiosuy ay} SsurjeooTy dep 


I WVvaovIG 








M 

me] 

oO 

<A 

4 

om Te Rae Re 

> ai pi ae ed 
+A oa a | i 
<q ze [ - 
L oe i 
ee mee 
= pe 
< 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 31 


not suburban, but “agricultural,” that is, centers located in dis- 
tinctly farming areas and that act as service stations to the 
farmers of the surrounding countryside. This opinion is con- 
firmed by the map. It will be noted that there are large numbers 
of incorporated villages in and around such a highly agricultural, 
non-industrial state as Iowa, and that they are evenly distributed 
geographically; which makes it plain that as a group they are not 
suburban. The same kind of distribution prevails throughout 
the entire wheat belt of the Mississippi valley and the cotton belt 
of the South. The incorporated village appears, therefore, to be 
primarily of the agricultural type. Certainly the majority of 
these villages are located in the midst of predominantly agricul- 
tural areas. 

The fact that “agricultural” villages constitute the most 
numerous type is further confirmed by an analysis of data 
gathered by one of the Institute’s previous rural studies. Several 
years ago the Institute took over, and subsequently brought to 
completion, certain county surveys of the Interchurch World 
Movement. Analysis of this material indicates that the majority 
of all villages—incorporated and unincorporated—are “agricul- 
tural” in the sense in which this term has been defined by the 
Institute. 


PROPORTION OF VILLAGES INCORPORATED 


Interesting as is the map locating incorporated villages, it 
obviously does not adequately represent the distribution of all 
villages. Diagram I shows, for example, that there are no in- 
corporated villages in either Massachusetts or Rhode Island and 
that there are only two in New Hampshire. Anyone familiar 
with the distribution of population in these New England states 
must recognize at once that there are relatively far more villages 
in these areas than the figures indicate. The only possible ex- 
planation is that in this region the proportion of villages which 
are incorporated is relatively small. That this is the case is 
clearly brought out by Table II which shows, for each of the 
nine major divisions employed by the Census, what proportion 
of the total number of villages are incorporated. 

According to this table there is wide variation from region 
to region in the number of incorporated villages relative to the 


32 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


total number of villages, the two regions in most striking contrast 
showing a twelve-fold difference. In the West North Central 
division (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas), 89 per cent. of all villages are 
incorporated; while in New England (Maine, New Hampshire, 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) only 
7 per cent. are in this class. These figures therefore tend to 
confirm the general impression that the number and distribution 
of incorporated villages is very different indeed from the number 
and distribution of all villages. It would therefore be an error 
to assume that the villages of the United States are scattered 
over the country in the general proportions shown by Diagram 
I, for on this basis the number of villages in the Middle Atlantic 
and New England divisions would, according to the atlas count, 
be greatly underestimated. 


TABLE II—PROPORTION OF VILLAGES THAT ARE INCORPO- 
RATED, BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Number of Villages 


Total Incorporated Ratio of (b) 
Division (Rand McNally) (Census) to (a) 

(a) (b) Jo 
LIMEOC Otated 1 cancun Oleine Dee eae 18,381 10,239 56 
New dengland v.04 warn ia ue ti Ly3s2 78 7 
Middle) Atlantic iA oe 3,027 1,014 33 
East) North’ Central 28 .3...28, 3,504 2,346 67 
West North Central avian ko. 2,989 2,648 89 
SOUtMy PAtaTiie Wee s ue heenae Aa eae 2,357 Gb KYA 
Hast South (Central, 260/73 e 1,380 797 58 
West .South Central fon, cua 2,061 1,051 51 
MoGUntTalD ec esa seas meee 979 545 56 


Pacihies (S04 2A es ee ee 952 408 43 


DISTRIBUTION OF ALL VILLAGES 


Even admitting that the atlas furnishes only a rough estimate 
of the number of all villages, and that therefore the proportion of 
these that are incorporated is only approximately correct, never- 
theless the discrepancies between the atlas figures and those of the 
Census are so great as to rule out Census data as a basis for 
estimating the distribution of villages from region to region. 
Consequently it was decided to use the atlas count in order to 
determine how villages are scattered over the country. The 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 33 


results of this tabulation show, as between States, a maximum 
variation of thirty-fold. Delaware has fifty-two villages with 
37,538 inhabitants; while its neighbor, Pennsylvania, has 1,590 
villages with aggregate populations of 1,170,580. The majority 
of states, however, have from 100 to 400 villages each, while 
only seven states have more than 600 each. 

The wide fluctuations in village populations from state to state 
are not surprising in view of the tremendous variations in the 
size of the states themselves. The area of Texas is nearly 250 
times as large as that of Rhode Island; while the population of 
New York is almost 135 times that of Nevada. The real ques- 
tion, therefore, is not how many villages are located in each state, 
but rather how does the number of villages bulk in relation to the 
total area and to the total population of the different states. The 
relative number of villages for every 100 miles of territory is 
given by states in Table III. 


TABLE HI—VILLAGES FOR EACH 100 SQUARE MILES OF AREA, 
BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


No. of Villages per 
Villages Land Area 100 Square 
Division (Rand McNally) (Square Miles) Miles 
Meoited otates f...00604. 18,381 2,973,774 0.62 
New England .. 4.0: ...2. Ti32 3 61,976 1.83 
Middle Atlantic ........ 3,027 100,000 3.03 
East North Central ..... 3,504 245,564 1.43 
West North Central .... 2,989 510,804 0.59 
mouthhAtiantic ......... 2,357 269,071 * 0.88 
Fast South Central...... 1,380 179,509 0.77 
West South Central .... 2,061 429,746 0.48 
BOROtAIY A... cass Wes 979 859,009 0.11 
SOR P  iietl laa ss 952 318,095 0.30 


* Includes District of Columbia. 


These data reveal that for the United States as a whole 
there are roughly six villages for each 1,000 square miles of 
territory. The ratio, however, shows decided differences among 
regions. In the Middle Atlantic division (New York, Pennsyl- 
vania and New Jersey), there are approximately thirty villages 
to every 1,000 square miles; while in the Mountain division 
(Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, 
Utah and Nevada), there is only one for each 1,000 square miles. 

The table makes it clear that, in general, the farther west the 


34 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


area the more widely scattered are the villages. There are, how- 
ever, certain exceptions to this general rule. The Mountain di- 
vision has fewer villages to the square mile than has the Pacific 
division, while New England has fewer than the Middle Atlantic 
states. Since these exceptions occur in both cases in the more 
sparsely settled of the two divisions, the question arises whether 
the number of villages in any area is not closely correlated with 


POPULATION 
DENSITY PER 
SQUARE MILE 


LESS THAN 10 
10 TO 20 
20 TO 30 
30 TO 40 
40 TO 50 
50 TO 60 
60 TO 70 
70 AND OVER 





Dr1AGRAM II 


Average Number of Atlas Villages for 
Each 100 Square Miles of Area in 
States Grouped by Density of 
Population, 1920 


the density of population in that area. That this is the case is 
shown in Diagram II, which presents graphically the relative 
number of villages in states with varying densities of population. 

This diagram shows that in those states in which the density 
of population is less than ten persons to the square mile the 
average number of villages for each 100 square miles is 0.15; 
but that with increasing density the number of villages steadily 
increases until in those states having seventy or more inhabitants 
to the square mile, the number of villages is 3.29 for every 100 
square miles. 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 35 


PROPORTION OF VILLAGERS BY DIVISIONS 


The close interrelationship of density of population and the 
distribution of villages brings up the question—what proportion 
of the total inhabitants live in villages? Table IV furnishes these 
data by divisions. 


TABLE IV—PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL POPULATION THAT 
RESIDES IN VILLAGES, BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Population 
Total 
United States Total Village Ratio of (b) 
is (Census) (Rand McNally) to (a) 
Division (a) (b) % 
Barred States eiwivscs cee 105,710,620 12,858,521 12 
BeeWar Nand |... vs ss 55a ae 7,400,909 778,890 11 
Middle Atlantic’ <......:.. 22,261,144 2,154,431 10 
East North Central ....... 21,475,543 2,475,587 12 
West North Central ...... 12,544,249 2,081,129 17 
mut Atlantic)... 2... <<... 13,990,272 * 1,612,969 12 
Hast south Central »... .).. 8,893,307 923,319 10 
West South Central ...... 10,242,224 1,462,872 14 
OLE TT SA 3,336,101 694,603 21 
PATO soe ckes setae hy oo 5,566,871 674,721 12 


* Includes District of Columbia. 


Slightly less than one-eighth of all Americans live in villages. 
This ratio is remarkably constant among the different regions, 
the most important exceptions occurring in the West North 
Central division where one-sixth of the inhabitants are villagers, 
and in the Mountain division where the proportion is roughly 
one-fifth. This latter ratio is probably owing to the relatively 
large number of mining villages found in that area. 

From many viewpoints it is as interesting to know the rela- 
tionship that villagers bear to the “rural” population as it is to 
know their relation to the total population, especially since the 
Census classifies villagers as rural inhabitants. When this rela- 
tionship was studied, however, the New England division was 
entirely omitted because there is strong evidence for believing 
that the township form of local government found in that area 
causes the Census classification of the population into “urban’”’ 
and “rural” to produce results so different from the results of 
the enumeration elsewhere in the United States that the rural 
population figures for New England are not comparable with 


36 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


those for the rest of the country. The evidence for this belief 
is presented in Appendix A. 


VILLAGERS IN RELATION TO “RURAL” POPULATIONS 


Because of this belief that the rural Census figures for New 
England are not comparable with those for other areas, it was 
decided to exclude data for this region not only when computing 
the percentage of the rural population living in villages, but also 
when making many other comparisons presented in this book. 


TABLE V—PROPORTION OF THE RURAL POPULATION (EX- 
CLUDING NEW ENGLAND) THAT RESIDES IN VILLAGES, 
BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Population 
Total Rural Total Village Ratio of (b) 
(Census) (Rand McNally) to (a) 

Division (a) (db) 0 
United States, excluding 

New England .......... 49,870,181 12,079,631 24 
Middle Atlantic .......... 5,588,549 2,154,431 39 
East Worth Central?.. +..2% 8,426,271 2,475,587 29 
West North Central ...... 7,816,877 2,081,129 27 
South VAtlanticas 5 ay este 9,651,480 1,612,969 17 
Bast; south) Central’ 30. os 6,899,100 923,319 13 
West South Central ...... 7,271,395 1,462,872 20 
Winer tain Wd eee th tee oe ZlelLiZt 694,603 33 
PAC cr cuye eked ae 2,095,388 674,721 on 


According to Table V, one out of four rural inhabitants lives 
in a village. This average would be decidedly higher were it not 
for the southern divisions where these proportions are low. In 
the South Atlantic division only one out of six rural inhabitants 
lives in a village, while in the East South Central area this pro- 
portion is less than one in seven. 

One reason for the relatively small number of villages in the 
South has probably been the comparative poverty of that area. 
The Civil war left the South bankrupt. As a result, southern 
farmers have had, until lately, a relatively low purchasing power. 
They could not so well afford to buy farm machinery, nor to 
pay for store clothes, nor even to purchase medical and other 
professional services as the farmers in other areas. Since these 
are the very things that villages supply, it is not strange to find 
that village development has been retarded. At present, however, 


HOW MANY VILLAGERS ARE THERE? 37 


the South seems well on its way toward a period of unusual eco- 
nomic prosperity. This should tend to cause rapid development 
of villages. 

The relatively low proportion of villagers among the rural 
populations of the South can also be explained in part by the 
presence of the plantation system which prevailed until recently 
in that area. Under this system, farming was conducted by units 
more or less self-supporting. They themselves supplied nearly all 
the things they needed. Consequently villages did not develop in 
the South to the same extent as in other regions. During the last 
generation the plantation system has been rapidly breaking up, so 
that one may naturally expect villages in that area to have in- 
creased rapidly in importance. The growth and decline of villages 
since 1900 will be discussed in the next chapter. 


CHAPTER III 
ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 


The opinion that villages in America are rapidly declining is 
widely held.* So strong is this belief that the question was seri- 
ously raised whether the Institute should undertake the present 
study. It was urged that since villagers were a diminishing popu- 
lation group, it was hardly worth while to investigate them in- 
tensively. The vital bearing of this question upon any nation- 
wide inquiry into village life led to the present study of the in- 
crease and decrease of village populations from 1900 to 1920. 

The discussion falls into two main parts. In the first, an 
effort will be made to ascertain the total increase or decrease of 
village populations since 1900 and to compare this figure with 
the increase of the nation’s total population and of its rural popu- 
lation. In addition, the latter part of the chapter will attempt 
to find the rate of population growth of villages since 1900. The 
total village population from decade to decade cannot be used as 
a base for calculating this rate of growth because the number of 
places that fall into the village class is constantly varying. To 
get around this difficulty an effort will be made to ascertain the 
population changes from 1900 to 1920 of the places that were 
incorporated villages in 1900, and in this way to come to some 
conclusion about the rate of growth or decline of these particular 
places. 

The fact that the total village population of the country has 
been increasing can be demonstrated by comparing the number 
and the populations of incorporated villages at 1900 and at 1920. 
The figures, which were secured by reclassifying the data fur- 
nished by the published Census volumes, are presented in 
Table VI. 


1 See Gillette, Rural Sociology, Chapter XXI, “Declining Villages of America” 
(Macmillan, 1922). 
38 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 39 


The table shows that from 1900 to 1920 the incorporated vil- 
lages of America increased 41 per cent. in both number and popu- 
lation. This is a large increase indeed. During the same period 
the population of the United States as a whole increased from 
76,000,000 to 106,000,000, or 39 per cent. These figures show, 
therefore, that during these twenty years incorporated villages 
increased in population even more rapidly than the nation as a 
whole. 


TABLE VI—INCREASE IN NUMBER AND IN POPULATION OF 
INCORPORATED VILLAGES, 1900 TO 1920 


No. of Rate of Population of Rate of 


Incorp. Increase Incorp. Increase 
Year Villages To Villages % 
eee ot sel bs 6 es 10,239 41.4 8,509,659 41.4 
ERAS ee aials Lisa's ece'a 7,240 apts 6,017,878 Ma 


In this respect it may be felt that incorporated villages are not 
representative of all villages. To meet this point, a special count 
was made of all the villages, unincorporated and incorporated, 
listed in the 1902 edition of the Rand McNally Atlas, which fur- 
nishes figures as of 1900. The results of this tabulation show 
that the country’s total village population in 1900 was 8,693,462, 
compared with 12,858,521 in 1920, an increase of 48 per cent. 
It also shows that during the same period the atlas villages in- 
creased in number from 12,707 to 18,381, or 45 per cent. These 
figures, therefore, indicate that during the twenty years follow- 
ing 1900 the populations of all villages increased faster than the 
populations of incorporated villages alone; and it confirms the 
conclusion that since 1900 the total village population increased 
more rapidly than the population of the nation as a whole. 


INCREASE OF VILLAGERS BY DIVISIONS 


Although the increase of village populations since 1900 has 
been on the whole quite rapid, Table VII indicates that there are 
wide variations in the tendencies to increase in different regions. 
For comparative purposes, this table also includes figures for the 
population as a whole. 

Because the populations of incorporated villages in New 
England constitute only 7 per cent. of the total number of vil- 
lages, it is not strange that the data for incorporated village 


40 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


populations in that area show marked differences from the data 
for all villages. With this exception, however, the two sets of 
figures agree surprisingly well. Both series show that the re- 
maining eight divisions have the same relative ranking as to popu- 
lation increase. The West South Central division made the 
largest increase, the Mountain division comes second, the Pacific 
third, the South Atlantic fourth, while the East South Central, 
West North Central, East North Central and Middle Atlantic 
have fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth places respectively. In other 
words, villagers have increased in number slowly in the East and 
Middle West and rapidly in the South and Far West. 


TABLE VII—PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF VILLAGE AND OF 
TOTAL POPULATIONS, BY DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Per Cent. of Population Increase 


Incorp. Village Total Village Total 

Division (Census) (Rand McNally) U.S.A. 
MIDIOE LOPRTESIUY. woe Sepak ae Coens 4] 48 39 
New iaalanl sete us iter ay 6 eek eer: 4 60 32 
Middle vA tanto crsiay cumulant 7 16 44 
East’ NorthitGentral peo ek Bene 15 20 34 
West North: Centralyod vei ani 37 a7. 21 
SOUTH GA LLSTILIC te Gr aka Dec ier ee ale we ies 64 83 34 
East So0th Centrabens ster wee 57 62 18 
WestsSouth ‘Central. 4000 2 es 134 124 57 
INTOUST AAT eee eo ote Cord Way ea nL 130 111 99 
Pacing sera es oe ee ee 100 98 130 


Because the two sets of data agree so closely, this table again 
confirms the belief that the atlas count of villages is sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this book. 

To judge the significance of the increase of village popula- 
tions from division to division, it is worth while to compare the 
percentage increase for village dwellers with similar figures for 
the total population in the same area. This comparison, which 
is also found as a part of Table VII, shows that whether the in- 
crease of village populations from 1900 to 1920 is estimated on 
the basis of the atlas count or on the basis of the Census enumera- 
tion of incorporated villages, there are five divisions—the West 
North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South 
Central and the Mountain—in which the number of villagers 
has increased more than has the population of the area as a whole; 
while there are only three divisions—the Middle Atlantic, East 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 41 


North Central and Pacific—whose total populations have in- 
creased more than that of the incorporated villages or than the 
estimated population of all villages. New England, as usual, is 
the one region for which the data are contradictory. In that 
division, the atlas count shows that the number of villagers has 
increased much more than has the total population, while the 
data for incorporated villages show an opposite trend. 

Because of the conflicting nature of the available evidence 
regarding the increase in New England, that region has been 
entirely omitted from the discussion that follows. For the ma- 
jority of the other eight divisions, the data clearly indicate that 
the populations of villages and of the divisions as a whole have 
increased quite differently. Indeed, it is only in the two far- 
western divisions that the increase of villagers closely parallels 
the general increase of population. In those areas, both the total 
and the village populations have approximately doubled since 
1900. In the three southern divisions, on the other hand, village 
populations have increased twice as fast as the total populations 
of the divisions themselves. 

The explanation for this relatively rapid increase is probably 
to be found in the comparatively small number of villagers in 
those southern areas. It has already been shown that in the 
South, even today, villagers make up a decidedly smaller pro- 
portion of the total rural population than is the case in other 
sections of the country. In 1900 the dearth of villagers in those 
regions was still more pronounced. ‘There was then a scarcity 
of villagers, not only in relation to the rural population but in 
proportion to the total population as well. The atlas count for 
1900 shows that at that time, on the average, only one out of 
twelve inhabitants in the three southern divisions was a villager, 
while the proportion in other divisions averaged one in eight. 
This virtual undersupply of southern villagers, coupled with the 
break-up of the plantation system, probably accounts for the fact 
that village populations in this region increased much more rapidly 
than the population as a whole during the last twenty years. 

The prevalence of the belief that village populations are 
rapidly declining makes significant the fact that in only two of 
the eight divisions have they developed much more slowly than 
have the total populations of the regions in which the villages 
are located. These two divisions are the East North Central and 


42 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


the Middle Atlantic, where in 1900 villages were most numerous 
in proportion to the total land areas involved. The atlas tabula- 
tion reveals that at that time there were twelve villages for every 
1,000 square miles in the East North Central division, while the 
number in the Middle Atlantic states was twenty-seven, or more 
than six times the average number for the United States as a 
whole. In the light of these figures, it seems probable that the 
slow increase in the number of villagers in these regions during 
the last two decades is to be explained by recent changes in 
modern methods of transportation which in certain states may 
have brought about a situation amounting to an oversupply of 
villages. To a large extent, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- 
vania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and the other states in these di- 
visions were thickly settled long before the coming of the railroad 
and the automobile. In a region where the ordinary methods of 
transportation were the ox cart and the horse and buggy, it is 
but natural that villages should have sprung up close together, 
since farmers could not easily travel long distances to trade. 
With improved means of transportation, particularly with the 
coming of the motor car, rural people were suddenly enabled to 
travel far greater distances than formerly. As a result, they no 
longer required so many villages. Thus it is not strange that 
in these divisions village populations have increased slowly, not 
only in comparison with totals for the regions but in relation to 
the increase of villages in other areas. 


INCREASE OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS BY DECADES 


If the last hypothesis is correct, one might expect that village 
populations would increase less rapidly in the period 1910 to 1920 
than in the earlier decade, since the influence of the automobile 
can hardly be said to have seriously affected rural life until after 
1910. That this is the case is shown by Table VIII, which gives 
the percentage increase of incorporated villages by decades and by 
divisions. For comparative purposes, similar percentages for the 
total population have also been included. 

According to this table, villages increased in population much 
less from 1910 to 1920 than during the earlier decade, not alone 
in the Middle Atlantic and East North Central divisions, but in 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 43 


every other region as well. For the country as a whole (exclud- 
ing New England), the population increase of villages from 1910 
to 1920 was only one-third as great as in the earlier ten-year 
period. Of course, this decline is partly explained by the lower 
percentage increase for the country as a whole. In four of the 
eight divisions, during the decade 1910 to 1920, village popula- 
tions expanded more than the total population of the division 
itself. Moreover, it is worthy of special note that in nineteen 
of the forty-two states outside of New England the populations 
of incorporated villages during the last Census period increased 
more than the total populations of the respective states. Among 
these states are Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, 
Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. These 
states comprise the very heart of the nation’s wheat and corn 
belts. The list of nineteen states also includes such important 
cotton-raising areas as South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and 
Louisiana. 


TABLE VIII—PERCENTAGE INCREASE BY DECADES OF IN- 
CORPORATED VILLAGE AND OF TOTAL POPULATIONS, 
BY DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Per Cent. of Population Increase * 


1910-1920 1900-1910 
Incorp. Incorp. 

Division Village Total Village Total 
United States, excluding New 

Atlee. es ese o's a vals ots Glata > 9.5 15.1 29.6 Zhe 
PIALe TAUIATTIC oak oe coe sees 3.0 15:2 10.9 25.0 
PacteiVortn Gentral .. 2% veleee + sa's phe Vs 122 14.2 
West North-Central”. ........... 11.8 78 22.6 125 
BSMtIVOATIANILIC .foccs esas edeaes 11.9 14.7 46.5 16.8 
meet South Gentral®. soo. 6es. 5s 5.8 Sif 47.9 11.4 
MVest, south. Central)... .. 6.25... 27.8 16.6 83.3 34.5 
MUTT CHATHIO ey os Oo core Sc cites ck er 41.9 26.7 62.0 57.3 
RCC My eT aie a ios He oe 8.5 32.8 84.3 73.5 


* Minus sign (—) denotes decrease. 


These data raise the question whether village populations are 
not increasing faster than the country’s rural population. This 
question is particularly important because an affirmative answer 
would mean that villagers are becoming a proportionately larger 
element of the nation’s “rural” population. 


44, AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


VILLAGE VS. “RURAL”? INCREASE 


Probably the simplest way of testing this hypothesis is to 
work out the proportion of the rural population living in incor- 
porated villages in 1900, and then to compare this figure with 
the same ratios for 1910 and 1920. This computation shows 
that 13.5 per cent. of America’s rural inhabitants outside of New 
England lived in incorporated villages in 1900; but that by 1910 
this proportion had increased to 16.0, and that in 1920 it was 
16.9. This means that between 1900 and 1920 the relative im- 
portance of incorporated villages within the rural area increased 
one-quarter ; which, to say the least, is a very decided increase. 

The same general tendency is confirmed by the atlas count 
of villages, which indicates that in 1900 about one-fifth of all 
rural inhabitants lived in villages, while the ratio for 1920 is one- 
fourth. Clearly villages are becoming a proportionately larger 
element of the country’s rural population; and this tendency has 
not been confined to any particular area. Both the atlas count 
and the data for incorporated villages alone, show that in the 
period 1900 to 1920 this increase held not only in every one of 
the eight divisions but for thirty-nine of the forty-two states 
under discussion. Moreover, the general trend held for both 
decades, as is demonstrated by the fact disclosed by the Census 
figures, that during the period 1900 to 1910 every one of the 
forty-two states except Colorado increased its incorporated vil- 
lage population more rapidly than the remaining rural area; while 
during the decade 1910 to 1920 only nine states fell within the 
exception, 

Since village populations are becoming a proportionately 
larger element of the nation’s total rural population, it follows, 
of course, that the rural population living outside of villages is 
increasing more slowly than the total rural population. This, in 
turn, implies that even the comparatively slow increase of rural 
populations tends to exaggerate the population increase in rural 
districts outside of villages. Such a conclusion becomes doubly 
important when it is remembered that the great majority of 
America’s farmers live in Open-country areas. Table IX presents, 
for the period 1900 to 1920, the percentage increase of popula- 
tions in villages and in the remaining portions of the rural area. 

Before comment is made on the table, a word as to how the 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 45 


figures were compiled is necessary. As a check upon each other, 
two different methods were employed. According to the first, the 
“open-country” population for both 1900 and 1920 was secured 
by subtracting the population of incorporated villages from the 
total rural population. On this base, the percentage increase of 
that part of the rural population not located in incorporated vil- 
lages is shown in the next to the last column of Table IX. By 
this method, however, the actual per cent. of increase of rural 
populations other than those of villages is overestimated; because 
unincorporated villages are included as a part of the “open- 
country” area. A second method was therefore employed which 
eliminates this difficulty. The increase of the rural population 
other than that of villages was calculated by subtracting the atlas 
counts of villages from the total rural population given in the 
Census. The results of this computation appear in the last 
column of the table. 


TABLE IX—PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF THE POPULATIONS IN 
VILLAGES AND IN THE REMAINING RURAL AREA, BY 
DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Per Cent. of Rural Population Increase * 


Total In Villages In Open Country 

Rural Total Outside Outside 
Incorp. (Rand of Incorp. of All 

_ Division (Census) McNally) Villages Villages 

United States, excluding 

New England ....... 13.1 41.9 47.2 8.7 5.4 
Middle Atlantic ....... 3.9 6.9 16.1 3.2 —2.5 
East North Central .... —3.9 14.6 20.1 come —11,2 
West North Central .... 5.6 37.0 3f.5 end WY 2.6 
Souto Atlantic -..0. 4... 17.5 63.9 82.7 13.4 9.7 
East South Central .... 7.5 56 61.9 4.2 a2 
West South Central .... 32.8 134.4 124.0 24.6 20.5 
MOAN et tS cin bc ots ae 87.2 129.9 111.0 78.1 77.4 
POCA re ohne ea Tiers Sp ave 61.9 99.9 97.8 pooh 6 49.0 


® Minus sign (—) denotes decrease. 


On either basis, however, the conclusions to be drawn from 
the figures are much the same. As might have been expected, 
the former method shows an appreciably higher per cent. of 
“open-country” increase than the latter; but in both cases the 
outstanding fact is that village populations have increased much 
more than has the open-country population. Even on the most 
conservative basis, the figures for the eight divisions combined 


46 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


prove that between 1900 and 1920 the number of people living 
in incorporated villages increased nearly five times as fast as 
the number of the inhabitants of the remaining rural area; while 
the atl: s count shows this difference to be about nine-fold. On 
either basis there are amazingly wide variations. 

The facts also tend to prove that village populations, com- 
pared with those of the open country, showed relatively the same 
high per cent. of increase in the decade 1910 to 1920 as during 
the earlier ten-year period. The available data on this point are 
presented in Table X, which gives by decades the percentage 
increase of the populations of incorporated villages compared 
with similar figures for the remaining rural people. 


TABLE X—PERCENTAGE INCREASE BY DECADES OF THE 
POPULATIONS IN INCORPORATED VILLAGES AND IN 
THE REMAINING RURAL AREA, BY DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 


1920 
Per Cent. of Rural Population Increase * 
1910-1920 1900-1910 
In Outside In Outside 
Incorp. of Incorp. Incorp. of Incorp. 
Division Villages Vaullages Villages Villages 
United States, excluding New 
England Saas v6.0 cece aye 9.5 oe 29.6 6.3 
MiddlewvAtilantic 7.4 beg <8 e ees —3.6 0.8 10.9 2.4 
Fast. North Gentrali. . 20s). st sie Ze — 3.7 12.2 —4.8 
West North Central ..........-. 11.8 —2.5 22.6 0.8 
South Atiantice cf sive tsetse o> 11.9 is 45.5 aif 
East? South Gentral aise nes <4 5.8 0.5 47.9 ahs 
West) South / Central #. 2c. e008 +: 27.8 3.9 83.3 20.0 
Motintain vison ce ne eases 41.9 22.0 62.0 45.9 
Paciher) 6: cag he ok del het ee esate sie 8.5 17.5 84.3 32.1 


* Minus sign (—) denotes decrease. 


According to these figures, populations of incorporated vil- 
lages in the eight divisions showed an average increase in both 
decades that was considerably more than four times as high as 
that for the rest of the rural population. The table shows that, 
in the 1900 to 1910 period, incorporated villages increased 29.6 
per cent., while the remaining rural areas increased 6.3 per cent. ; 
during the next ten years incorporated villages expanded 9.5 per 
cent., compared with 2.2 per cent. for the rest of the rural area. 

This phase of the analysis shows that, contrary to general be- 
lief, villages have increased in population, not decreased. More- 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? AT 


over, their populations increased more rapidly from 1900 to 1920 
than did the population of the nation as a whole. True, this 
village increase was less rapid from 1910 to 1920 than during 
the preceding ten years; but this was to be expected, not only 
because the nation as a whole showed a less rapid increase, but 
more particularly because the country’s rural population living 
outside of villages showed a much less rapid increase. The 
populations of the villages themselves made, therefore, in rela- 
tion to the rest of the rural population, a very decided increase 
during the last two Census periods. This means that villages 
are becoming a more and more important element of the nation’s 
rural population. 


RATE OF VILLAGE GROWTH 


How is this increase to be explained? The first reason that 
comes to mind is that village populations are growing at a rela- 
tively rapid rate. There is, however, another factor that must 
be taken into consideration—the number of places classed as vil- 
lages. Suppose the rate of growth of open-country populations 
and that of village populations were the same; nevertheless there 
might still be a constantly decreasing proportion of rural inhabi- 
tants living outside of villages, for no other reason than that 
the natural excess of births over deaths would tend to swell 
the population of the open country and thus bring more and 
more communities into the village class. Any hamlet, no matter 
how small, if it but maintain a rate of population increase, will 
sooner or later pass the 250 limit and enter the village group. 
Thus it is only reasonable to expect in any growing rural area 
a constant passage of open-country communities into the village 
class. Even if village and open-country populations expanded 
at the same rate, it would still mean that the rural territory not 
included within villages would constantly decrease from decade 
to decade, while the number of places classed as villages might 
tend to increase. Of course this latter tendency would be en- 
tirely balanced provided enough villages passed the 2,500 mark 
and entered the urban class. If this is not the case, the high rate 
of population increase in villages, compared with the increase in 
other rural areas, can be in part explained by the fact that in a 
growing country like America, many places that are hamlets at 


48 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


one decade develop into the village class by the next Census 
period. 

In order to eliminate this factor it was decided to consider 
the changes in village and in open-country populations that took 
place between 1900 and 1920 in the same territory. For this 
purpose, the populations as of 1910 and 1920 were computed ; 
first, for the places that were incorporated villages in 1900,” and, 
secondly, for the rest of the rural area as that area was con- 
stituted in 1900. On this basis, the rate of population growth 
since 1900 was then worked out separately for incorporated 
villages and for the rural territory not included in these villages. 
This method was adopted because it eliminates the disturbing 
effect arising from the passage of hamlets into villages or of 
villages into cities, etc. 


TABLE XI—RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES OF 
THE PLACES THAT IN 1900 WERE (A) INCORPORATED 
VILLAGES AND (B) REMAINING RURAL AREA, BY DI- 
VISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Rate of Rural Population Growth * 


1900-1920 1910-1920 1900-1910 
© re os 
td 1d 1d 
a SS < 38 <= SS 
Sow = Be *— ae *e 
Sv wa Sy 38 a ae 
weiSt. sees 2a 33 29 Ba 
OF gF S85 S23 gc S85 SS cepa ee 
Division Be SAR Os Be AA OG Ra Re eR a 
T Fo %G Jo. Yo. '% Jo) To: VG 


United States, ex- 
cluding New Eng- 


Rarity seo 4 PANEER KWON 4 Ge Py ESR 8.5 186 68 139 27,5 Ane 
Middle Atlantic .... 23.8 52.7 17.7 0.54195 2.71 13.0 27.7. 92 
East North Central. 5.3 256 0.6 S16 12580 ioo 17°) IL7 06 
West North Central 10.7 29.6 64 SAP ere me ay 4 1672055 
South Atlantic .... 23.7 818 18.7 9.0. 248: 7.3 13.4), 45,4205 
Fast South Central. 11.3 499 88 is Poets ie Se ae 74. 295-2 
West South Central 47.9 121.6 42.3 P27 A Oh a) Lind 31.3 60.7 29.0 
Mountain) cae. 112.7 93.4 116.5 14 ae OA. BB 8 IY f 63.2 574 643 
PIE Ty Ga wet a po 101.3 137.7 95.0 29.4 32.7 28.8 55.5 79.1 -Sa4 


* Minus sign (—) denotes decrease. 


This computation, which is summarized in Table XI, reveals 
that the places that were incorporated villages in 1900 grew in 


2 According to the 1900 Census there were at that time 7,240 incorporated 
villages in the United States. In computing the growth of these places during 
the next twenty years it was necessary to eliminate 220 of them because their 
1920 populations were not available—105 having consolidated with other places, 
and 5 having given up their articles of incorporation, while the other 110 were 
absent from the later Census volumes and could not be accounted for. 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 49 


populations during the next twenty years, 51.3 per cent.; while 
the remaining rural territory grew only 19.5 per cent., or at 
two-fifths the rate for incorporated villages. When it is re- 
membered that in this calculation villages that were unincor- 
porated in 1900 were necessarily included as part of the “open- 
country” territory, it becomes obvious that even this two-and- 
a-half-fold variation probably underestimates the actual differ- 
ence between the rate of growth of villages and that of the open 
country.® 


TABLE XII—RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES OF 
PLACES THAT IN 1900 WERE (A) INCORPORATED VIL- 
LAGES AND (B) CITIES, BY DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Rate of Population Growth 


1900-1920 1910-1920 1900-1910 
Se B Be 
§ £8 g 8 2 £8 
alu ae cooley UNE Pasta eS) Wot 
Division 
United States, excluding i He ih a Ze ve 
New England ....... 6.4 sie 24.5 18.6 Ga,7, 27.5 
Middle Atlantic ....... 54.8 Vad { 17.9 19.5 31.4 21.4, 
East North Central .... 69.6 25.6 31.1 125 29.3 11.7 
West North Central ... 47.6 29.6 18.0 Thi AM | 16.7 
mouth Atlantic: ov... .. 6. 71.9 81.8 Re 24.8 29.2 45.7 
East South Central .... 55.1 49.9 17.1 15:7 32,5 29.5 
West South Central ... 1028 121.6 34.2 37.9 51.1 60.7 
PERMA oak ol ek aes 71.0 93.4 18.1 22.9 44.8 57.4 
TI We eek sini o's ne vlc POS9 Ese 7, 35.9 Jey, 94.2 79.1 


Table XI shows these same growth figures by divisions and 
by decades, and proves that even when the comparison is con- 
fined to identical territories, villages in every division except the 
Mountain grew in population decidedly faster than the open- 
country areas. Indeed, in most regions, villages grew at a rate 
approximating that of the cities, as is clearly seen in Table XII, 
which compares the rates of growth by decades of the places 
that in 1900 were incorporated villages and those that were cities. 

8It may be argued that the figures in Table XI tend to underestimate the 
actual rate of growth of “open-country” territory because urban centers that 
extend their boundaries sometimes absorb populations that were previously 
classified as rural. Unfortunately, there are no adequate data showing the effect 
of this factor. However, it is not believed that this factor would begin to 


compensate for a trend in the opposite direction arising from the fact that 
unincorporated villages were included as a part of the “open-country” territory, 


50 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


According to these data the places that were cities in 1900 
increased their populations during the next twenty years by two- 
thirds and villages by one-half. When it is remembered that the 
rural populations outside of incorporated villages in 1900 de- 
veloped only one-fifth during the same period, it becomes ap- 
parent that villages have been increasing at a rate that more 


Division PERCENTAGE GROWTH 
0 50 100 150 


MIDOLE ATLANTIC 
EAST NORTH CENTRAL 


WEST NORTH CENTRAL Ff 


SOUTH ATLANTIC Bo Wer WS 






EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL’ 
MOUNTAIN a ROSAS CLONE 


PACIFIC ROOOERLLOOESS KKK 


BS cities 
KEI INCORPORATED VILLAGES 
[___] REMAINING RURAL AREA 


D1acrRAmM III 


' Population Growth of Places That in 
1900 Were (A) Cities, (B) Incorpo- 
rated Villages, and (C) Remaining 
Rural Area, 1900 to 1920 


nearly approximates the growth of cities than that of the open- 
country areas. In fact there are three divisions—the South 
Atlantic, the West South Central and the Mountain—where be- 
tween 1900 and 1920 villages actually grew at a more rapid 
pace than the cities of the same area. 

Moreover, the populations of incorporated villages grew 
almost as fast as those of the smaller cities. This statement is 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 51 


upheld by the figures in Table XIII, which show that between 
1900 and 1920 the places with populations of from 2,500 to 
10,000 grew 59 per cent., compared with 51 per cent. for the 
villages. In this connection it is interesting to note that since 
1900 the places that have grown most rapidly have not been 
the largest cities but rather those with populations of from 
25,000 to 100,000. Surprisingly enough, villages are growing 
almost as rapidly as America’s great metropolitan centers. 


TABLE XIII—RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES OF 
PLACES THAT IN 1900 WERE (A) CITIES OF VARYING SIZE, 
(B) INCORPORATED VILLAGES, AND (C) REMAINING 
RURAL AREA, 1900 TO 1920 


Rate of Population Growth 
No.of 1900-1920 1910-1920 1900-1910 


Size of Place Places ¢ % Jo Jo 
Cities * 

RMN CATILACver bs se dice ¢ a2 63.0 24.4 31.0 

Z5tN0 to - 100,000 |. .0. 32. o. « 96 91.1 29.7 47.4 

BAN £0 20000 Fe vat. eae: 228 67.3 26.3 32.4 

Pandit eal) OOO) bo So a Me Lee 1,157 59.3 20.9 31.8 
Villages * (Incorporated) ...... 6,959 51.3 18.6 27.5 
Remaining rural area* ........ 19.5 6.8 11.9 


* Excludes totals for New England. 
t Includes only those places listed in the 1920 Census, 

In considering these figures it should be kept in mind that 
the rates of growth for urban centers have been disproportion- 
ately influenced by immigration. During the twenty years since 
1900 a relatively large number of the immigrants who entered 
America have settled in our cities. The 1920 Census shows that 
there are 13,920,692 foreign-born people living in the United 
States. Of this number 10,500,942 live in cities, while only 
3,419,750 reside in rural areas. Of the ten and one-half million 
aliens living in urban places, 5,478,989 are known to have entered 
the country after 1900, while only 1,416,106 of the three and 
one-half million rural aliens fall into this group. In other words, 
of the seven million aliens who are known to have entered the 
country since 1900 and who are still living here, only one-fifth 
are living in rural communities, while four-fifths are living in 
urban centers. Naturally, this tendency helps to explain the rela- 
tively rapid growth of cities as compared with rural growth. Had 
it been possible, it would have been interesting to eliminate the 
effect of immigration and then to compare the rate of increase 


52 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


since 1900 of cities, villages and the remaining rural area. Un- 
fortunately, the number of aliens who have settled in villages is 
not known; but since it is known that proportionately few im- 
migrants settle in rural areas, it seems almost certain that if the 
immigration factor were eliminated, the figures would show the 
rate of village growth to be very similar to the average rate of 
growth of very large cities, and also of very small cities. 

The fact seems to be that, instead of declining, villages are 
growing two-and-a-half times more rapidly than open-country 
populations. This conclusion not only shows the current belief 
that villages are steadily declining to be iil founded, but serves 
to give a peculiar significance to studies of American village 
life. Villages are worth investigating not only because so little 
is known about them but also because they are steadily becoming 
an ever larger element of the nation’s rural population. Indeed, 
they are growing so rapidly that the question arises whether a 
considerable part of the exodus from the open country is not to 
the village rather than to the city. 

It may conceivably be that America is at the beginning of a 
new agricultural era in which farmers, thanks to good roads and 
the automobile, will come more and more to live together in 
villages in order to enjoy greater social advantages. Be that as 
it may, the net result of the various population trends now at 
work in America is for open-country populations to expand far 
more slowly than those either of villages or of cities. This 
development will naturally tend to give villages an increasingly 
prominent place in American rural life. 


ARE LARGE VILLAGES GROWING MORE RAPIDLY THAN SMALL? 


Before leaving this discussion of the growth and decline of 
villages, a final question remains to be considered. Are larger 
villages growing at the expense of smaller ones? On the face 
of it, there are reasons for thinking so. Indeed, the rural experts 
called together to advise upon the conduct of the Institute’s vil- 
lage study were nearly a unit in recommending that the Institute 
confine its investigations to the larger villages because “‘the larger 
village is the village of the future.’ With the coming of the 
automobile, the smaller village, so runs the argument, will not be 
able to survive the competition of the now easily accessible larger 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 53 


centers. Thus the tendency in America will probably be to have 
fewer, although larger, villages. 


TABLE XIV—RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH BY DECADES OF 
PLACES THAT IN 1900 WERE (A) SMALL, (B) MEDIUM, 
AND (C) LARGE INCORPORATED VILLAGES, BY DIVI- 
SIONS, 1900 TO 1920 

Rate of Population Growth 


No. of Incorp. 
Villages 1900-1920 1910-1920 1900-1910 
Division (1900) % Jo J 
United States, excluding New 
England 
ERIE Rare ee econ Been olan eae ay 4,930 48.8 1 27.5 
PRO ey this fc ohne anita s 3 1,395 53.3 20.1 27.6 
9 hey ie A RG 634 53.4 PRR 
Middle Atlantic 
CU OO RE ne aN Rae I 577 50.2 20.8 24.3 
EO CERES, PGBS Mae eo) ea OP 226 51.5 19.0 27.3 
BPAY Es Oc estes we otis Oks ke se 145 56.6 18.7 1.9 
East North Central 
Pe earns ch ee Oo as Ov Cee ink 1,401 24.5 11.5 11.7 
PMELIATHY Av oe sds ie wk bites s OR 420 24.1 122 10.5 
Be OCS ae oc Ta asta ts, 162 30.6 15.1 13.4 
West North Central 
STO ALS RA RO ee 1,407 26.9 10.0 15.4 
PIG e Mi ale ca ee Oa 312 OLik 11.9 18.6 
Ra of ed ah pe a a 132 32.4 13.0 17.2 
South Atlantic 
TES CRANE SORE oe RAN gt 648 85.3 23.4 50.2 
PCRS LTS, sree seek pees 144 86.4 32.3 40.9 
PTO Ge ss ck cc Cee eee 61 66.4 17.9 41.2 
East South Central 
aL eer te 8, ores sats 355 577 17.8 33.8 
ULE Lan CR 97 43.9 14.4 A § 
Beare eee ese ihe le SY, 38 42.0 12.8 25.8 
West South Central 
CTO TA Le Aika ial toa aa 272 117.9 Lh it 71.3 
AES CEES ii ke Re Se AEE Sg 103 139.7 44.5 65.9 
BAVC lois sees oe cic ee Ba ole 50 102.4 46.7 37.9 
Mountain 
SA OCs Sag CERES ARE Sanaa ms aL 133 112.1 27.3 66.6 
PUEPUIIETIN: oh tos vi G). Bnei noe 48 98.6 26.1 Lp 
BERT UERT An or a dhe win ok Ne 22 55.8 9.5 42.3 
Pacific 
a BO a Tn 137 112.5 20.9 75.8 
URTEA LITTER ues how Fs inti“a 5G ahe'y Ae ee 45 137.1 26.3 87.6 
BRAT eed Gh, yi oaitlu'y de 24 175.1 57.9 74.2 


In order to test this hypothesis, it was decided to trace the 
growth records since 1900 of villages of various sizes. For the 
purpose of this analysis, the places that were incorporated villages 


54 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


in 1900 were divided into three groups. Those with populations 
of from 250 to 1,000 were classified as “small” villages, those 
of from 1,000 to 1,750 were designated as “‘medium-size,” while 
places having from 1,750 to 2,500 inhabitants were called “large.” 
On this basis the growth tendencies of these three types of vil- 
lages were worked out separately by decades and divisions, The 
results are presented in Table XIV. According to this computa- 
tion, averages for the United States as a whole show that during 
the 1900 to 1910 decade, small, medium and large villages de- 
veloped at almost identical rates. During the last ten years, how- 
ever, the rate of increase of population in small villages was 
appreciably lower than in medium or large villages. But this 
trend showed decided fluctuations among divisions. Indeed, in 
certain divisions, notably in the Mountain, the South Atlantic 
and the East South Central, there was a diametrically opposite 
tendency. There, even in the last decade, small villages grew 
more rapidly than large. It may be that in the future small 
villages will be eliminated through the competition of large 
centers; but, as yet, this tendency does not appear to have pro- 
ceeded very far. 


PROPORTION OF VILLAGES THAT ARE GROWING 


The general conclusion of this investigation into the growth 
and decline of villages since 1900 seems to be not only that 
villages are growing in population but that in relation to the 
rest of the rural population they are growing very rapidly in- 
deed. Of course, this should not be understood to mean that all 
villages are growing. Obviously, some villages are actually losing 
population. The previous discussion would indicate, however, 
that far more villages are growing than are declining. That this 
is the case, is proved by Table XV, which shows the relative 
number of incorporated villages, as constituted in 1900, that had 
growing, stationary, or declining populations between 1900 and 
1920. For purposes of this analysis a “stationary village’ was 
defined as one that did not, on the average, gain or lose in popu- 
lation as much as 1 per cent. a year, or 20 per cent. during the 
two decades; while all villages falling above or below these ex- 


tremes were defined respectively as “growing” or “declining” 
villages. 


ARE VILLAGE POPULATIONS DECLINING? 55 
TABLE XV—PROPORTION OF INCORPORATED VILLAGES OF 


1900 THAT HAD (A) GROWING, (B) STATIONARY, OR (C) 
DECLINING POPULATIONS, BY DIVISIONS, 1900 TO 1920 


Per Cent. of Villages 


Size Total No. Growing Stationary Declining 
of of Incorp. (over C2070 (over 
Division Villages Villages 20%) +20%) 20%) 
United States, ex- 
cluding New Eng- 
land Dotalis i. ae 6,959 47.3 42.7 10.0 
pmally te’. 2. 4,930 46.1 42.5 11.4 
Medium 1,395 48.4 43.9 us 
Large 634 54.6 41.6 3.8 
Middle Atlantic ‘POlal wie acs 948 47.8 44.3 7.9 
Small iw. Ds7 42.1 47.8 10.1 
Medium 226 52.2 42.0 5.8 
Large 145 63.4 33.8 2.8 
masteNorth. Central Total. ..0.%; 1,983 29.9 55.4 14.7 
Sitallrei 1,401 29.0 54.2 16.8 
Medium 420 29.0 59.3 Ti 
Large 162 40.8 54.9 4.3 
West North Central Total ....... 1,851 44.1 48.1 7.8 
SMlalieeecia: 1,407 44.8 46.5 8.7 
Medium . 312 42.3 52.2 Se 
Large .. baz 40.2 56.0 3.8 
South Atlantic Totapery eet 853 66.1 25.9 8.0 
Sriiial borate g 648 64.7 26.2 9.1 
Medium .. 144 ra ie 23.6 49 
Laren. 61 ay * * 
East South Central Total ....... 490 54.7 33.1 122 
Small Ne a a 50.3 G31 To5 
Medium 97 * * = 
Large 38 * * * 
West South Central Total ....... 425 73.6 20.7 Wr, 
Small 203 2/2 Virw 19.9 6.6 
Medium .. 103 72.8 2 4.9 
Parco ns. 50 be Yi 
Mountain Totaheer ta: 203 65.5 20.7 13.8 
Simialled.\s, 133 66.2 18.0 15.8 
Medium 48 * * + 
Patra lies. 22 * * > 
Pacific abital cents La « 206 73.8 24.3 1.9 
mimnally as. 137 70.1 28.5 1.4 
Medium 45 * * * 
ear rey tes 24 % * * 


* Base less than 100. 


56 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


On this basis, one-tenth of all the places that were incorporated 
villages in 1900 fall into the class of declining villages, while 
nearly half—47.3 per cent.—are steadily growing. This means 
that during the last twenty years there were forty-seven villages 
that were rapidly growing in population for every ten that were 
rapidly declining. Of course, these ratios vary regionally. The 
East North Central division has the lowest proportion of increas- 
ing villages, while the West South Central and the Pacific di- 
visions have the highest proportions. 


CHAPTER IV 


WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE LIVE IN AGRICULTURAL 
VILLAGES? 


Thus far in this analysis an attempt has been made to come 
to some conclusions concerning the number, the distribution and 
the growth tendencies of American villages. The discussion has 
demonstrated the importance of the village in the nation’s life 
by showing that a large proportion of the population is to be 
found in villages; and that, contrary to general belief, the rate 
of village increase since 1900 has been relatively rapid. The 
American village has been shown to be a large and increasingly 
important element of the country’s rural population. 

The discussion will now center upon the kind of people that 
live in villages, the work that villagers do for a living, and the 
nature of the services that villagers perform. 

To deal with these problems it is necessary to rely upon the 
special tabulation of village data which the Institute secured 
directly from the files of the Census Bureau. This tabulation, 
it will be recalled, was undertaken because the Government does 
not make available in its published reports the detailed facts 
about the composition and characteristics of villagers. 

In all, the Institute’s special count of Census data included 
177 widely scattered places. Their location is shown by Diagram 
IV. Strictly speaking, not every one of these places falls within 
the Institute’s definition of the term village, since four have popu- 
lations just above 2,500, while one has a population of 246 and 
is therefore really a hamlet. Nevertheless these five places have 
been included as villages because they come so near being villages, 
and especially because their effect upon the averages for all 
villages is almost negligible. From the evidence presented by 
this sample, an attempt will now be made to ascertain what kind 


of people live in villages. 
57 


58 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Because the Institute’s special tabulation of Census data was 
restricted to “agricultural” villages—in other words, to villages 
located in agricultural areas and that act as service stations to 
farmers—this analysis has necessarily been limited to places of 
that type. This limitation was adopted because it was felt that 
if suburban, mining, lumbering, cotton-mill and other types of 
industrial villages were included along with agricultural ones as 
a part of this investigation, the number of places studied would 





© 60 260 30D 
Gaeta 
§caLe oF MuLes 


DracraAmM IV 
Map Locating the 177 Agricultural 
Villages 


be too small to admit of reliable national generalizations being 
made about any type of village. As it is, however, it is possible 
in this study to draw reasonably sound conclusions about the 
agricultural village which undoubtedly is the most numerous type. 


COLOR, NATIVITY AND PARENTAGE 


The wisdom of confining the investigation to one class of 
villages is fully confirmed by the present inquiry into the kind 
of people living in American agricultural villages. Analysis 
shows that even the composition and characteristics of agricul- 
tural villages alone vary so widely from one section of the 
United States to another that, on the basis of a much smaller 
sample, it would have been entirely impossible to draw national 
deductions about them. Indeed, the make-up of village popu- 
lations differs so much from division to division that it becomes 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 59 


a serious question whether national averages from widely scat- 
tered villages have much significance; certainly they should be 
used with great caution. Of what value is the fact that on the 
average one in every eight inhabitants of agricultural villages 1s 
classified by the Census as “colored,” when further investigation 
reveals that colored inhabitants in villages are so largely con- 
centrated in the three southern divisions that no other division 
has as much as 2 per cent. of colored population. This and other 
regional differences among agricultural villages are revealed by 
Tables XVI to XXIV inclusive, which summarize by divisions 
the main facts about the composition and characteristics of agri- 
cultural villagers. 


TABLE XVI—COLOR, NATIVITY AND PARENTAGE OF AGRICUL- 
TURAL VILLAGE POPULATIONS, BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Percentage Distribution of Population 


No. of White Colored 
Villages Native-Born Foreign- 
Parentage Born 
Division Native Foreign Mixed 

Middle Atlantic* ....... 34 82.0 7.0 5.9 4.4 0.7 
East North Central ..... 24 66.5 14.3 9.7 8.7 0.8 
West North Central .... 41 61.5 155 10.7 13 1.0 
Demet VE lANtiC sry sss 6s» 24 62.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 30.4 
East South Central ..... 11 75.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 23.0 
West South Central ..... 9 78.8 4.0 2.5 oA 9.6 
MCR orn ae sare sc theke's 7 76.1 7.8 9.0 6.3 0.8 
Meme Cilia eee as eae 27 66.5 10.7 9.4 11.6 1.8 


* Following the procedure adopted in A Census Analysis of American Villages, 
Thurmont has been included as a Middle Atlantic village although it is located in 
Maryland. This procedure was adopted because facts reveal that this village, which is 
located just below the Pennsylvania state line, is northern rather than southern in its 
chief characteristics. For example, it has only one Negro in a total population of 1,074. 

Table XVI indicates that so far as color, nativity and 
parentage are concerned it would be hard to make generalizations 
that would be even approximately representative of agricultural 
villages in all the different divisions, The wide differences among 
divisions in the proportions of the population that are “colored” 
has already been pointed out. The table under discussion also 
reveals similar differences in the proportions of the foreign-born. 
A weighted average for all of the 177 villages shows that 6.7 
per cent. of the inhabitants are foreign-born whites; yet the 
divisional totals reveal that in two divisions, the South Atlantic 
and the East South Central, the foreign-born constitute only 
about half of 1 per cent. of the population; while in two other 
areas, the West North Central and the Pacific, they comprise 


60 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


more than 11 per cent. From many standpoints, therefore, the 
national averages would appear to be far less significant than 
divisional averages. 


TABLE XVII—PLACE OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN-BORN VILLAGERS, 
BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. of Foreign Persons Born In 


North- 

No.of western Other All 
Division Villages Europe* Europe Canada Mexico Orient Other 
Middle Atlantic ..... 34 71.8 15.4 12:2 0.1 a 0.5 
East North Central .. 24 76.9 14.8 7.4 0.1 + 0.8 
West North Central . 41 79.6 7.9 10.0 2.1 0.1 0.3 
South Atlantic ®...... 24 35.1 46.4 4.6 0.5 2.6 10.8 
East South Central .. 11 18.0 64.0 33 1.6 3.3 9.8 

West South Central . 9 12.2 15.9 1.7 70.2 + + 
Mioisitain 4 ol 7 55.0 13.0 13.4 9.3 6.4 2.9 
Pacii@uts vasavret nee 27 51.5 ee 12.4 ioe 4.2 4.0 


* Germany and Austria are included. 
¢ Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


According to Table XVII, the place of birth of the foreign- 
born population in agricultural villages also shows marked 
regional variations. In the East North Central and the West 
North Central divisions, more than three-fourths of the foreign- 
born come from Northwestern Europe, whereas the ratio in 
the West South Central division is less than one in eight. The 
proportions from “Other Europe’’ show even greater fluctuations. 
In the East South Central division, 64 per cent. of the foreign- 
born fall in this group; while in the West North Central division, 
this ratio is only 8 per cent. Canadians comprise from 1.7 per 
cent. to 13.4 per cent. of the alien population of villages and 
are found in the villages of every division. Mexicans in villages 
are found mainly in the West South Central, the Mountain and 
the Pacific divisions; while the relatively few Orientals in vil- 
lages are to be found mainly in the two Far West divisions. 


AGE, SEX AND MARITAL STATUS 


In addition to variations in nativity and color, agricultural 
villages also show wide differences among divisions in their 
age-distribution and sex-distribution. Diagram V presents data 
about the ratios between the sexes, and shows that there are 


1 The term “Northwestern Europe” as defined by the Institute, includes the 
following countries: Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, 
Nevers Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Wales, Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium, 
an ustria. 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 61 


only 88 males to every 100 females in the Middle Atlantic states, 
while in the Mountain division this ratio is 107 men to every 
100 women. These are fundamental differences. 

The facts about age-distribution, which are given in Table 
XVIII, further support the conclusion that villages differ de- 
cidedly among divisions. In proportion to their populations, 
Middle Atlantic villages have only about three-fourths as many 
children under ten as have those of the South Atlantic division. 
On the other hand, the relative number of people over seventy 
years of age in the West South Central area is only one-third as 
large as in the Middle Atlantic states. A relatively high pro- 
portion of old people in a population undoubtedly makes for 
social conservatism. 


OlVision 


WIODLE ATLANTIC 
SOUTH ATLANTIC 
EAST NORTH CENTRAL [i 
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL’ 
WEST NORTH CENTRAL §f 
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL §f 
PACIFIC’ . 
MOUNTAIN 





DIAGRAM V 
Number of Males to Each 100 Females 
in Villages, by Divisions, 1920 


Curiously enough, the figures also show that in five of the 
eight divisions the relative number of females between ten and 
twenty years of age is greater than the proportion under ten. 
In all probability this surprising situation is not owing to a 
rapidly falling birth-rate, since the data for boys do not show 
the same trend. A more plausible explanation is that there is a 
tendency for young girls from the open country to come into 
the villages to find employment. Open-country boys, on the other 
hand, do not migrate villageward to the same extent, because 
they are badly needed on the farms. Another element in the 
situation is the fact that village boys probably migrate cityward 
to a greater extent than do the girls. 


62 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XVIII—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF VILLAGERS, BY SEX 
AND BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. : 
Under 70& & 
Division 10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 Over S 
Males 
Middle Atlantic ......... 16.3. 15.4. .13.7,213.2., 13.2. 12.0 4962 Bee 
East North Central ...... 18.1. 16.9. 13.7. 128° 121. (12) Pee6ee oe 
West North Central ..... 18:2, °17:9) 14.6°-13.1511.6. 103) Reta see 
Sicrii thse thaniti Gis) bes oak ae ole 22.9.319:5" 17:12514.0: 114 & 7 2eeS2e eee 
East South Central ...... 20.7 20.1 16.5132 125 784 V5.7 a52 eee 
West South Central ...... 22.8: -200* 166 “148 10.9 >6.8 S25) 2a eee 
NIGUNTAID Woy os aa Wk asks 21.7 16.6 16.8 - 15.9% 12.0, (8:7 353232 
Patiniceiey. cea sees eee 18.3 “166 15.0 14.6" 13.1 210207 733.5 eee 
Females 
Middle Atlantic .......... 14.2" 18.2) 13:8) 134°-13:;3 “122.1007 See 
East North Central ...... 16.2. .17.3, (15:37 '13:3 (11,9 1149985262 
West North Central ..... 17.9 F188 16.06,13:6. 71.5. 69:4. 97:5) Se 
South ‘Atlantic’. ee ee. 20:5. 20:72 19-0 813.9108 <6.90 7476 AS 
East South Central ...... 19:49. 217320185 al O100 419) 7 da 456 3 See 
West South Central ...... 216 21.42 19.20 14:5 3.0 Oe" 6.2. 24.3% eo eee 
Mountain iin ee ore 225) VOAMAB FeSO 10:7 7.1 Ca 
Pacihen is. oi stan 18.99°18:77"15. 844-3551) 8° 69.4 eG eae 


TABLE XIX—MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGERS 15 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX AND BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Division Single Married Widowed Divorced Unknown 
Males 
Middle Atlantic ....... 26.8 66.1 6.7 0.3 0.1 
East North Central ... 29:7 63.6 5.9 0.7 0.1 
West North Central .. 33.3 60.4 5.5 0.6 0.2 
South, atlantic woke tas, 335 60.8 Hd 0.1 0.4 
East South Central ... 31.9 62.7 4.8 0.5 0.1 
West South Central ... 31.6 61.5 52 0.3 1.4 
Menintaine arenes ey. ame 62.0 4.2 1.1 0.2 
Paeiiicinses ute sets 33.1 59.7 55 L5 0.2 
Females 
Middle Atlantic ....... 26.7 56.3 16.4 0.5 0.1 
East North Central ... 27.4 Shia 14.3 1.0 0.1 
West North Central ... 28.7 57.6 12.8 0.8 0.1 
South Atlaritiea? iA. 30.0 54.4 14.9 0.3 0.4 
East- south Central :;, (26.7 58.5 13.6 0.9 0.3 
West South Central ... 26.5 60.0 12.9 0.6 * 
Monntain < sea fie 224 66.6 9.2 1.4 0.1 
Pariiceee, sora te ie 22.6 62.6 13.3 1.5 * 


* Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 63 


The decided differences among divisions in the distribution 
of village populations would naturally lead one to imagine that 
villages also vary among themselves in the marital status of 
their inhabitants. That this is the case is shown by Table XIX. 
Because of the relative dearth of the young as compared with 
old people, and of men as compared with women, it is not sur- 
prising to find that the Middle Atlantic division has the smallest 
proportion of single men and that the two far western divisions, 
with their excess of men over women, have the smallest propor- 
tion of single females. 

The proportion of both men and women that are divorcees 
is highest in the Pacific division and lowest in the South Atlantic. 
These ratios would seem to provide a fairly reliable index of 
the general hold upon the people of traditional attitudes toward 
marriage. 

The discussion of marital conditions brings up the question 
of the size of family. Information on this point is presented in 
Table XX, which shows that the three southern divisions are 
the only ones that have an average of four or more persons to 
the family, while the Middle Atlantic has less than three and 
one-half. The other divisions fall in between. 


TABLE XX—HOME OWNERSHIP AND SIZE OF FAMILY AMONG 
VILLAGERS, BY DIVISIONS, 1920 


Percentage Distribution of Homes 
No. of 


Rented Owned Tenure Persons 
Encum- Un- Un- toa 

Division Total Free bered knownknown Family 
Middle Atlantic ....... 39.3 59.0 44.0 13.9 vi 1.7 3.4 
East North Central .... 31.9 66.4\ 512. i404 0.8 LZ 3.6 
West North Central ... 32.4 6,05 WG 2 arn Te Jit 1.6 3.6 
moth Atlantic. i...... 50.0 45.8 35.8 6.5 BAe 4.2 4.2 
East South Central .... 45.1 52.6 43.1 7.3 pas 2.3 4.0 
West South Central .... 43.2 Sai soe 8.0 9.8 3.3 4.3 
BPOUNT aT ha se oy seed 46.3 SUA a2 0 GeO 0.2 a0 3.9 
ie! i aca id sees 42.8 54.4 374 143 2.7 2.8 3.6 


Data about home ownership are also included in this table 
and show that in the East North Central and West North Central 
divisions, 66 per cent. of all homes are occupant-owned, but 
that in the South Atlantic division less than 46 per cent. fall 
into this class. 


64 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND ILLITERACY 


The Census data about school attendance, which are given 
in Table XXI, reveal that the proportion of boys and girls from 
seven to twenty-one years of age that attend school varies from 
about four-fifths in the Mountain division to two-thirds in the 
West South Central area. For the older boys and girls from 
eighteen to twenty-one years, the West South Central makes 
the poorest showing; while the West North Central shows up 
best for the boys, and the East South Central for the girls. 


TABLE XXI—SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF VILLAGERS BETWEEN 
7 AND 21 YEARS OF AGE, BY SEX AND BY DIVISIONS, 


1920 
Per Cent. by Age-Groups 
Division 7-20 ILI ERASE DC ge 16&17 18-20 
Boys 
Middle Atlantic’. . o........5- fap 96.0 90.0 50.4 26.5 
HastuNorin: Géentfal<suucese 78.8 96.9 90.1 60.6 29.6 
West North Central J... 0.02.0. 78.9 97.0 90.0 62.2 32.6 
South Atlanticue eu erces teoees 74.0 91.1 82.8 60.0 25.6 
East South Central’........- 71.9 88.7. 84.1 60.4 25.5 
West South Central ......... 66.3 79.8 80.7 54.9 18.9 
Moutiiiin oases ci ld eos 80.4 97.2 92.6 64.2 27.6 
Pacihe tec ites ne cakes eee 74.7 92.3 89.2 56.3 24.4 
Girls 

Middle Atlantic <.23305.. 4.8.0 74.8 96.0 91.9 61.9 24.1 
East North Central ......... 77 97.8 90.7 66.6 25.4 
West North Central ........ 78.7 97.1 92.8 71S 31.2 
South’ZA tlantic) i. sve cae ea « 7oek 93.0 86.0 64.6 23.9 
East? Souths Central © 00 fr.hen% 75.6 90.0 89.0 69.3 31.5 
WestiSouthyCentral >... 22585 67.4 80.8 83.0 63.8 24.9 
Mountain fie ute cess: ea 79.9 96.8 94.3 69.6 Zhi 
Pace pce ce Aine ons ea oe 76.5 90.9 90.9 70.2 28.4 


The question of school attendance naturally raises the problem 
of illiteracy. Data on this topic appear in Table XXII. For the 
total population, the proportion of illiterates is lowest in the 
Mountain division; and it will be recalled that on the whole 
school attendance is there the highest. The South Atlantic 
division, on the other hand, makes the worst showing, with an 
average illiteracy figure of more than 10 per cent. This very 
high ratio is owing mainly to the large number of colored people 
living in this area, as can be clearly demonstrated by showing 
separate rates for the different color and nativity groups. This 
comparison, which is also included as a part of Table XXII, 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 65 


shows that in the South the rate of illiteracy among colored 
populations is as high as 25 per cent. Even in the East North 
Central division, where the ratio is lowest, the proportion is 
6.5 per cent. for the colored. Among the native-born whites, 
however, the highest ratio is 2.6 and the lowest 0.2. In this 
respect, the East South Central area makes the worst record, 
and the Mountain division the best. 


TABLE XXII—ILLITERATES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER IN 
VILLAGES BY SEX, COLOR AND NATIVITY AND BY DI- 
VISIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. Illiterate 


W hite 
Native- Foreign- 
Division Classes Males Females Born Born Colored 
Middle Atlantic ......... ii 1.4 0.9 OS ea Les 9.4 
East North Central ...... Le 1.2 1.1 0.8 4.2 6.5 
West North Central ..... IS Yas 1.6 0.9 4.4 16.2 
Buin ritianticy.. 3. .% ge 6. 10.4 9.8 11.0 2.0 8.0 25.9 
East South Central ...... 7.2 7.3 7.1 2.6 * 22.3 
West South Central ..... 7.3 7.6 7.0 2VeTSLA 23.9 
CETERA PST tien ae rae a 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 4.8 * 
REMAIN eira ke out ee ce a Ze 2.4 vag | HS 15.6 


* Base less than 100. 


The surprising differences from division to division in the 
composition and characteristics of village populations caused the 
Institute to abandon the effort to analyze agricultural village 
populations by means of averages for the 177 villages combined. 
It was decided instead to base the interpretation upon regional 
totals. These were secured by classifying the villages tabulated 
into groups according to their geographic location. It was finally 
decided to use for this purpose somewhat larger areas than those 
employed by the Census. This procedure is justified by the fact 
that the number of villages is small and by the further fact that 
certain of the divisions have village populations that are quite 
similar. This is true of the two North Central divisions, of the 
three in the South and also of the two far western divisions. 
Throughout the remainder of this analysis, therefore, these di- 
visions have generally been combined when making regional com- 
parisons. In order to avoid confusion in the use of terms, the 
combined South Atlantic, East South Central and West South 
Central divisions are called the South; the East and West North 
Central divisions, the Middle West; and the Mountain and Pacific 


66 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


divisions, the Far West. The name of the Middle Atlantic area 
is unchanged because this region, as defined by the Institute, is 
identical with the Census division of the same name. 


REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VILLAGERS 


The make-up of the agricultural village populations of these 
four regions can be briefly summarized as follows. The Middle 
Atlantic states, as compared with those in other regions, are 
characterized by remarkably homogeneous village populations. 
The great majority of the people are not only native-born whites 
but of native parentage. The remainder are mostly native whites 
of foreign or mixed parentage. Less than 5 per cent. are foreign- 
born and very few are “colored.” Indeed, half the villages tabu- 
lated from this region had no colored inhabitants at all, while 
only two of the thirty-four places had so much as a 2 per cent. 
colored population, the average being 0.7 per cent. This is the 
smallest proportion found in any of the regions, 

As far as the age and sex of the population is concerned, 
Middle Atlantic villages have a striking preponderance of elderly 
people and a marked excess of women as compared with the 
number of men. These facts probably explain the unusually small 
proportion of single men in these villages. The average size of 
the families in this region is less than in the other three areas. 

In the southern region the most outstanding characteristic 
of agricultural villages is the large number of Negroes, who com- 
prise, on the average, more than a quarter of the total populations 
of these villages. This proportion, of course, varies consider- 
ably, particularly with the location of the village. As a rule, 
there are relatively more Negroes in the villages of the far South 
than in those of the border states. The large number of Negroes 
probably accounts for the fact that the proportion of foreign-born 
whites in this region is far less than in any of the other three. 
Of the forty-four villages analyzed in this area, only four had 
more than twenty-five aliens in their entire population. In the 
West South Central division the foreigners have come mainly 
from Mexico, while in the rest of the region they are pre- 
dominantly of South European origin. 

Concerning the age of southern villagers, the number of 
young people is relatively larger, and the proportion of old people 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 67 


is less, than in the villages of the other regions. In this con- 
nection it is interesting to note that the average age-distribution 
of southern villages is almost identical with the distribution of 
population of the United States as a whole. As might have been 
expected, the families tend to be larger in the South than in the 
other areas. Educationally the southern villages make a rela- 
tively poor showing, illiteracy being comparatively high and 
school attendance low. 

Middle-western villages are distinguished by an unusually 
high proportion of inhabitants of foreign birth or of foreign 
extraction who come mainly from Northwestern Europe, espe- 
cially from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Austria. 
Because these groups are so large the numbers of native whites 
of native parents are comparatively small. The village popula- 
tions of the Middle West seem to have reached a high level of 
economic well-being. The proportion of “homes owned” is 
appreciably higher than in any other region, as is also the per 
cent. of young people attending school. In addition, as will be 
shown in a later chapter, the number of boys under twenty and 
of old people over sixty-five that are gainfully employed is less 
than in the other areas. All these facts point to a relatively high 
economic standard of living. 

Turning now to the Far West, the villagers in this region 
show clearly the influence of the pioneer conditions through which 
they have but recently passed. Only 9 per cent. of the native 
whites have mothers who were born in state of residence, while 
in the Middle Atlantic region this ratio is 80 per cent. The 
effect of the pioneer period is also to be seen in the preponderance 
of males over females in the Far West. This is the only region 
where in villages the men outnumber the women. This situation 
in turn is reflected in the data as to marital condition. In this 
area, fewer of the women and more of the men are single than 
in any other region. 

The comparatively high divorce rate in this area is an indi- 
cation that far-western villagers are not bound by traditional 
modes of conduct to the same extent as the inhabitants in other 
areas. 

The presence of the Orientals is another distinguishing fea- 
ture of far-western villages. Although the problems raised by 
the presence of these Asiatics are highly involved, the number of 


68 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


such aliens is remarkably small. Out of a total village population 
of 42,838, there were only 323 Orientals, while fifteen of the 
thirty-four villages from this region had no Asiatics at all. 


EFFECT OF SIZE UPON VILLAGE POPULATIONS 


Thus far the facts have made it clear that there are decided 
regional differences among villages. The next subject to be dis- 
cussed is whether the size of a village influences the composition 
and characteristics of the inhabitants. From the standpoint of 
the present study, this is a most important question because, as 
it happens, the average size of the 177 villages which constitute 
the basis of the present analysis is appreciably larger than that of 
the general run of villages. Data on this point are presented in 
Table XXIII. 


TABLE XXITII—AVERAGE POPULATION OF VILLAGES, BY 
REGIONS, 1920 


Total Incorporated Places 

Region (Rand McNally) (Census) Studied 
Middle wAtiattion sc sc tose mentee 712 1,021 1,098 
Wiiddie “Westie drome win aire sere 702 772 1,293 
SOUth aed ily Ss ee ee Sea 690 842 1,306 
PATA ESE Listes weer ete 709 883 1,260 


This table makes it plain that on the whole the 177 villages 
included in the Institute’s special tabulation are not only larger 
than the average size of all villages but of incorporated villages 
as well. The villages studied by the Institute were purposely 
weighted in favor of the larger type because at the time they were 
selected it was believed that the trend in America was for the 
larger villages to become the dominant type.? 

The fact that the villages tabulated by the Institute include a 
comparatively large number of places that are above the average 
in size means, of course, that if size is a factor that decidedly 
modifies the characteristics of villagers, then conclusions based 
upon this sample will give a distorted picture of the real con- 
ditions in agricultural villages. That this is not the case, can 
be seen in Table XXIV, which presents by regions figures 


2 See discussion at end of Chapter III. 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 69 


. relating to the main points just covered for small, medium and 
large villages * separately. 

Turning first to the Middle West, which was selected for 
intensive analysis because the largest group of villages analyzed 
by the Institute is located in this region, the table shows that 
there are on the whole only very slight differences there among 
small, medium and large villages. These sixty-five places reveal 
almost negligible variations in the figures for illiteracy, home 
ownership, age-distributions and school attendance. The small 
villages in this area, however, have appreciably lower proportions 
of foreign-born than have the large villages. As a result, the 
proportion of native white decreases with the increasing size of 
the village. In addition, the marital condition of females tends 
to vary somewhat with the size of the center involved. Curiously 
enough, similar data for the males do not show this trend, since 
the men in small and in large villages are much alike in marital 
status. There is no marked tendency for the proportions of the 
sexes to vary with the size of villages—the medium-size centers 
disclose a lower ratio of men to women than either the large or 
the small villages. 

Data showing the effect of size upon the composition of 
village populations in the other three regions are also presented 
in Table XXIV. These figures make it possible to determine 
in how far the variations found among the small, medium and 
large villages of the Middle West reappear when the villages of 
the other regions are similarly classified according to size. Such 
a comparison reveals that there are very few trends common to 
the villages of the four areas. Indeed, the only tendency running 
through all four groups of villages is for school attendance for 
the girls seven to twenty-one years of age to be somewhat lower 
in the large villages than in the small ones. This is probably 
owing to the broader opportunities for gainful employment which 
the large villages afford. As will be demonstrated later, the 
number of people engaged in manufacturing enterprises tends 
to be proportionately higher in the large village than in the 
small one. This indicates that there are greater opportunities 
for industrial employment for young people, and would explain 
why school attendance tends to slump in the larger villages. 

3 As defined in Chapter III, a medium-size village is one whose population 


falls between 1,000 and 1,750; while that of a small village falls below 1,000 and 
that of a large village is above 1,750, 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


70 


O'OT LO01 F5! 39 16 S°8 Ser 641 ovT L9T O'ST SLT SS A8A0> PUR 00 
8°77 LEC ‘ce? LLI 0°02 £61 CCC LCC ooo 19¢ 0°SZ Vode Fs 0S PEP 
c OE 9°0E 6 62 Oe c 62 8°82 Vic O22 Oe 0°82 692 VOGs Se enc eee Oe: Cae 
89¢ Ne Ore Vcr vip ery 6S¢ CSE C9 T6¢ Oe? GUE gee Oe wpm, 
sajD yy eas 
VrOL—OOOL —T'SOl 096 Tv6 806 Ly6 «66860 — 9°86 O08 0G Se Ss Olea 
0} sojeur jo oney 
8'6P O'rS LS oop e1S cvs 0'S9 8°99 8°99 L£8S 16S LOG cay, > eee ene 
vLYV Sch TOF l6r 8 OF 8 eV a ce a 61E S"6€ Toe Zk Se alg Gian 
:somoy jo ainuay 
LETS v9 + CLC 102 082 S°8 To} 0°02 t SOT + Ser one Sper 
c8t 16 LY 4% SZ t OP vy Ls St c6 SCL ° ayy Uloq-usia10.5 
£0 £0 v0 sT BC LI 60 £0 OT UT v0 £0 == eh ye men! 
: IZAO 
pue sieof Q] ‘sa}e1oz IT 
e? eT 80 00¢ bee vo? 80 OT 60 T0 cl US ee eae ae 
06 60T vit ot Uc 90 Eel 00 cL cy 8S fC * SYA U1o0g-usia10,4 
£38 S28 828 $00 ensS Len O U4 TZ8 068 616 560 «6086 L6 * OHYM saneEN 
: uoljerndog 
aBAVT wnipayy yous abADT wmnipayy pjous IBID] Umipayy YoU abv wnrpapy you S mat] 
ieee 7 | #1 sT ST OT 47T 2-66 ec € +1 £I 
SIM 4D] yinos S94 A1ppryy INuDII 21ppryy 
ua) sag 


0¢6l “SNOIDAY A ‘AZIS ODNIAUVA AO SADVTIIA AO NOILISOGNOD—AIXX ATEVL 


15 


condition, 
ii teres sce ae se os 


Marital 


years and over: 


PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURAL VILLAGES 


ero iso 
NOwW-4 
&2O 


NRnmeN 


BANS 
lop To) 


CON ete 
AO 4 
© \O 


mom 
OOors 
€9 \O 


anf oe ew 
MAING 
6) \O 


ont 
HAINS 
9 \O 


ad hea Dae 
9 AINGS 
en 


mAN © OO 
RRS 
&9 \O 


NOM o 
Vawe 
©9 \O 


oon ioe 
OWN a 
No 


NMI N|N 
wa lehtok=) 
NWO 


On a) 
Sse 


oeeeo eee eee 
see 


eeoereereveeeeon 
eoseoee 


Married 
Widowed 
Divorced 


P30 al fot 


78.0 


(12 007. 


77.2 


78.4 


79.6 


74.3 


7 to 21 years of age 77.3 


School attendance 


Females 


Age 


mOnNM 


Anse 
OOO N 


OMAN 


BAAN 
Or 


> NWN 
1S 
N 


31.0 
11.5 


wn 
Ne) 
oD 


OwWworo 


Cito 
XT OO es 


NO co 
onl (ore) 
a pee 


AQ0N 
NX mm co 
ZOO rs 


bE Torah gees | honing aren 
fal eet pe Nae Aone Sar 
Ast SOLE se eee 
60 and over ........ 


15 


Sill Oia ena ea 


. 
e 


condition, 


Marital 


years and over 


MANS 
ON rt et 
NO et 


wmowMn 
NOON et 
NOr 


Wht 
a3 eS 
NO 


MtNCY 
WO STO 
was 


mAONN 


nwt o 
NM 


hMMHewM 


Sotto 
cone 


Orn Or 


OtroR 
One 


oh Tooke) 
bh 3S 
NW 


oOotrm 
weasS 


ONO 
NIN NAN © 
NW es 


as is Si 


mond 
An 4 


ones 


WO od 
NW 


ose eee oe 
oeeeererov ee 


eoeerereveve eevee 
ee 


Married 
Widowed 
Divorced 


/3.2. 309.3 


78.7 


PB. od 


78.5 


71.4 


tio 


7 to 21 years of age 72.3 


School attendance 


*Tncludes 3 towns. 


+ Includes 1 town. 


t Base less than 100. 


71 


72 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


The facts also show that in the South there is a rather pro- 
nounced tendency for the Negroes * to live in the larger villages, 
their proportion in the population being 23 per cent. in the small 
villages, and 30 per cent. in the large places. This tendency is 
again explained, in part at least, by the fact that the opportunities 
for gainful employment in manufacturing enterprises are rela- 
tively more numerous in large villages than in the smaller ones; 
and since Negroes are employed in many of these industries, they 
naturally flock to larger villages in disproportionately large num- 
bers. The whole question of gainful employment among villagers 
will be taken up in the next chapter. 

This phase of the study should not be understood as meaning 
that the size of a village does not influence in important respects 
the composition and characteristics of its population. The con- 
clusion to be drawn from this analysis is merely that, with the 
few exceptions already noted, size does not consistently modify 
points here discussed. Chapter VII, however, will show that 
there are aspects of village life which are decidedly modified by 
the size of the population of the village. 

4 Virtually all of the colored population in the South is Negro. 


CHAPTER V 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 


The analysis has thus far shown that in their composition 
and characteristics villagers of one region differ decidedly from 
villagers of other regions on such fundamental points as color, 
nativity, age, sex, marital status, illiteracy and school attendance. 

The present inquiry will now take up the question of occu- 
pations. The first problem will be to ascertain for the villages 
in each region the proportion of men and of women that are 
gainfully employed,* and to point out the significance of these 
figures. Next, an effort will be made to classify the gainfully 
employed according to the regular Census method of grouping 
them on the basis of the type of industry in which they are 
engaged—agriculture, manufacturing, trade, transportation, etc. 
Finally, because a man’s occupation is a significant key to his 
social position, an attempt will be made to employ a new scheme 
of classification, devised by Alba M. Edwards of the Census 
Bureau, which is intended to show the “social-economic’”’ status 
of the workers by indicating whether they are proprietors, skilled 
workers, laborers, etc. 

Because the data available for dealing with these three points 
were secured entirely from the Census, it is important to know 
from the outset the nature of the material gathered by the gov- 
ernment, and the form in which it has been made available in 
the Institute’s special tabulation. The 1920 Census not only 
secured data about “the trade, profession or particular kind of 
work done” by each individual, but also inquired into “the in- 
dustry, business or establishment in which at work” and whether 
the person was ‘“‘an employer, salary or wage earner.’ On the 
basis of these facts the Census classified each gainfully employed 
man or woman over ten years of age on the basis of 580 occupa- 

1As defined by the Census, the term “gainfully employed” includes “all 
workers, except women doing housework in their own homes, without wages, 
and having no other employment, and children working at home, merely on 


general household work, on chores, or, at odd times on other work.” See Four- 
teenth Census, Vol. IV, p. 9. 73 


74 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


tions and groups of occupations. In its special village count 
no attempt was made by the Institute to tabulate every one of 
these occupations separately. This means that the precise em- 
ployment of each individual was not enumerated as such. Thus, 
the number of carpenters, blacksmiths, painters, etc., living in 
the different villages is not known. Instead, these occupations 
were, with a few exceptions,? combined into groups in order to 
make possible the two methods of classification previously men- 
tioned, the one followed by the Census and the other devised 
by Mr. Edwards. 


PROPORTIONS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 


Before discussing either classification it is important to know 
the proportions of the inhabitants gainfully employed. Since the 
Census secures the age of each inhabitant as well as his occupa- 
tion, it is possible to work out these proportions separately for 
different age-groups. Such figures have been included as a part 
of Table XXV. 

According to this table only slightly more than two of every 
three men over ten years of age living in the middle western 
villages are gainfully employed, while in the other three regions 
this ratio is three in every four. By age-groups, however, the 
regions show more significant variations. In the far western 
villages only 1.1 per cent. of the boys ten to fifteen years of age 
are gainfully employed while the figure for the South is 6.1 per 
cent., with the Middle West and the Middle Atlantic falling in 
between with 2.9 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. respectively. Even 
more surprising variations occur among the men sixty-five and 
over. In the Middle West only 37.3 per cent. of this group 
are at work, while in the South this ratio is 64.1 per cent. The 
data for females reveal that the same general situation prevails 
among the older women. Fewer than one in twenty of the 
women over sixty-five in the middle-western villages are gain- 
fully employed, while in the South this ratio is one in eight. 
In addition, the table also shows that the South has the highest 
proportion of married and unmarried women at work, while the 
Middle West has the lowest percentages. 

These figures tend, therefore, to confirm the conclusion that 


2 Certain professional persons were tabulated separately, 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 75 


the inhabitants of middle-western villages are relatively ‘‘well- 
off” economically. Certainly the facts indicate that in this 
region economic conditions do not compel either the very old or 
the very young to work for their living in the same relative 
numbers as in other areas. 


TABLE XXV—PROPORTION OF MALES AND FEMALES 10 YEARS 
OF AGE AND OVER GAINFULLY EMPLOYED IN VILLAGES, 
BY AGE-GROUPS AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Middle Far 
Age-Group Atlantic West South West 
Males 
MA ees ATIC COVED. <a.6 «co ss’ 9 dhe sh 74.9 67.9 74.3 75.4 
BUPREME HL enaircle Geis ce WING tale 1.7 2.9 6.1 i. 
eM LE We ep cig 6. ee ccs lais 47.4 39.9 45.6 45.2 
USES? Wig Cae pecan) ane ae erg 94.9 92.3 94.1 95.5 
TRATES iinet oy thal tie w dete 91.3 83.5 94.0 92.7 
BESAN OMET TH like noe ety nuiek 51.4 B79 64.1 49.8 
Females 
PU GEALS ATU OVED) ays s'secd s vee s 19.8 Woe 21.8 17.0 
BUTTE as beck She eh e glsie Ao 0.4 0.8 Zk 0.1 
Rete Us eros fetetaes es 29.8 21.9 20.0 16.5 
tit de a2 Ph ge OM ag ay Sie 28.7 265 29.3 23.3 
ERO Beta, cic a's aos oo be ie 16.9 13.3 212 17.5 
Ge OVER Phy kok cme vise iee « 6.6 4.8 12.3 6.2 
15 years and over: 
AY Ce wi Us a ea Be a 9.0 6.1 12.9 8.2 
PUCRTLAETICN Fe witless cde ees 37.9 SI) 40.6 39.1 


*In this and in all similar computations, the relatively small numbers of persons of 
unknown age have been included in the base when computing the proportion of the 
gainfully employed 65 years of age and over. That this procedure is justified can be seen 
by the following computation which shows similar percentages when all persons of 
unknown age are entirely eliminated from the base. 


Per Cent. 65 Years oF AGE AND OVER 


Middle Atlantic Middle West South Far West 
AES Mr cee treet ees lava oc far a's! eibdee/sce 8 Lofe y/ 38.9 68.9 51.4 
ETH ALeS Wier ce ole hae tke eae ete 6.6 4.9 13.0 6.3 


7 Includes also those whose marital status is not known. 


The southern villages, on the other hand, have last place 
among the four regions. Here is to be found the highest propor- 
tion of gainfully employed children between ten and fifteen years 
of age, as well as of old people over sixty-five. 

The question naturally arises, in how far is this showing of 
the South to be explained by the large proportions of Negroes 
living in this area. To determine this point, a special computa- 
tion was made showing totals for the Negroes separately. 


76 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


The results of this calculation are presented in Table XXVI, 
which reveals that in this region the proportion of gainfully em- 
ployed Negro men over ten years of age is 78.1 per cent. and 
only 73.0 per cent. for the rest of the population. By age-groups, 
the differences are much more striking, especially among the very 
young and the very old. Almost 11 per cent. of the Negro boys 
between ten and fifteen years of age are gainfully employed, 
compared with but 4 per cent. of the other boys. For the men, 
sixty-five and over, three out of four Negroes are at work, con- 
trasted with only three out of five for the other elements of the 
population. Indeed, in every age-group the proportion gainfully 
employed is larger for the Negroes than for the rest of the male 
population. 

TABLE XXVI—PROPORTION OF NEGROES AND WHITES 10 


YEARS OF AGE AND OVER GAINFULLY EMPLOYED IN 
SOUTHERN VILLAGES, BY SEX AND AGE-GROUPS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Males Females 

Age-Group Negroes Whites* Negroes Whites * 
10 years of age and over ......... 78.1 73.0 41.8 14.4 

pA Se Pe GAT A GOON Ao OEE mAb ite 10.9 4.1 4.1 1.4 

LSSEOT LO «sch tts ek ee 65.0 38.6 34.6 14.3 

ZOSTOCASD Deck est Snes tee See ae 95.7 93.6 50.4 20.7 

ADUNTO\ OO Ros cts Gee ub eae 96.2 93.3 55.7 Ti 

65 And HOVER Hone oe eee 75.0 60.9 36.7 5.0 


* Includes the relatively few Orientals and American Indians, 


But the relatively high percentages for Negroes do not explain 
the average showing of southern villages. Even if the Negroes 
are eliminated, this region still has appreciably higher proportions 
of gainfully employed boys from ten to fifteen years of age and 
of old men over sixty-five than are found in any other region. 
This is a fact that should be kept in mind when one is considering 
the problem of child labor in the South. Along with the em- 
ployment of white children in this region goes the tendency to 
employ old men. The very fact that relatively large numbers of 
old people as well as young people are gainfully employed would 
seem to indicate that it is economic pressure, at least in part, that 
compels both groups to work. 

Turning now to the white women and the Negro women 
gainfully employed in the South, the facts are found to present 
even more striking differences between these two groups than 
were found among the men. Data for the forty-four southern 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 77 


villages show that almost 42 per cent. of all Negresses ten years 
of age and over are classed by the Census as gainfully employed, 
compared with 14.4 per cent. for the rest of the female population. 
Thus it becomes evident that in this region the average rate of 
gainful employment for the female population, colored and white 
combined, conceals the essential point that in the South this rate 
is relatively high among Negresses and low among white women. 
By age-groups, however, there is one exception to this generali- 
zation. Among the girls ten to fifteen years of age the propor- 
tions of both Negroes and of whites at work are higher than in 
any other region. 


OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS OF VILLAGERS 


An analysis having been made of the proportions of agricul- 
tural villagers that are gainfully employed, the discussion will 
now classify villagers according to the regular Census method 
of grouping them on the basis of major types of industry in 
which they are engaged. The results of this classification are 
presented in Table XX VII. 


TABLE XXVII—OCCUPATIONS OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 
MALES AND FEMALES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER IN 
VILLAGES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


| Per Cent. 
Middle Middle - Far 
Occupation Atlantic West South West 
Males 
OES TEES lle a ee a eae ree ck ta 8.9 13.8 17.0 ie Bo 
Boaraction ofsminerals® .6 05.6 4 < se. cms 0.2 1.8 0.6 0.7 
DEAD PIT ET ea eg Vals eins oe Mes gee ee 47.3 33.8 30.6 31.6 
OO ECO RET nT [a CA RS Aa asa Aa or a iL, 12.0 11.3 12:0 
TURIN ED) I Re TG SIE RS an aay a See 17.1 22.0 22.4 16.7 
MULE SOL VION chs ae od ek es Sah ce eels 1.4 1.8 25 1.5 
PTO LGERIONALSSETVICE bun ca ls kas vices eee 5.8 6.7 6.3 5.8 
Domestic and personal service ........ 8 5.0 aS. 5.1 
CEREAL Me ets Ve sicigie Ss oc. view sis 48 3.9 Sek 4.0 a3 
Females 

MBPT od aay Oss eet eae dee dhe sks 0.7 0.8 6.1 a1 
per CS AOTUL a cic ale ace e eletis © Ao ORE 0 Ca 36.1 12.7 2.5 10.3 
PrMIAUIOETAUIOU AS wile t vies nals od bp ens cee 7, 4.6 ts 4.9 
OP EAE CE | Sd Se We AE GH VOT ae 2 eta a 6.6 11.8 af 13.8 
MPC MSEY VICGN oak DON eee ales o's oie Baraat 0.2 Ys | 0.5 1.0 
MPentessinnal sService: idle 2c: varegeie's «eee 16.3 25.8 15.0 23.8 
Domestic and personal service ........ 24.9 30.4 49.2 29.2 
GSTS, ROE cuban Aue Aig Se ag RPL A ae Ce a 11.5 12.8 6.8 13.9 


78 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


According to this calculation, the largest group of gainfully 
employed men in each of the four regions is engaged in manu- 
facturing.’ In the Middle Atlantic region slightly less than half 
of all the gainfully employed males ten years of age and over 
fall into this group, while for the rest of the villagers in the 
South, Middle West and Far West, this ratio is roughly one- 
third. These figures are surprisingly high, especially when it is 
remembered that they are based entirely upon the Institute’s 
special tabulation of data, which was limited to agricultural vil- 
lages alone. One would hardly have expected these proportions 
to be so large in agricultural villages. 

The other occupational groups numerically important among 
village populations are trade, transportation and agriculture.* In- 
deed, these three groups, together with manufacture, include more 
than four-fifths of the gainfully employed men in the villages of 
the four regions. ! | 

It might reasonably have been supposed that trade would be 
the most important occupation in agricultural villages which, by 
very definition, are primarily service stations to the farmers of 
the surrounding countryside. In reality, however, it ranks second 
in the Middle Atlantic, Middle West and South, and third in the 
Far West. Even in the South and Middle West, where the 
numbers engaged in trade are relatively high, appreciably less 
than one-quarter of the gainfully employed men fall into this 
classification; while in the other two regions the ratio is only 
one out of six. 

The proportions engaged in transportation are remarkably 
uniform from region to region, being almost 12 per cent. in all 
four areas. Agriculture, on the other hand, shows wide varia- 
tions among regions. In the Middle Atlantic villages, the pro- 
portion of the men employed in agriculture is only 8.9 per cent., 
while in the Far West this ratio is 23.3 per cent. The Middle 
West and the South fall in between with 13.8 per cent. and 17.0 
per cent., respectively. Even within regions these percentages 
show decided fluctuations. There is one far-western village 
where the number of employed men engaged in agriculture is only 
one in fifteen, while in another village this proportion is one in 


3Corresponds to Census classification “Manufacturing and mechanical 
industries.” 

4Corresponds to Census classification ‘Agriculture, forestry, and animal 
husbandry.” 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 79 


two. Among southern villages these variations are still more 
pronounced. In Bethlehem, Georgia, about three-fourths of the 
inhabitants are classified by the Census as engaged in agriculture; 
while in Tillar, Arkansas, only five of the 115 gainfully employed 
men fall into this class. 

Next in importance to the four occupation groups just dis- 
cussed, comes professional service, which accounts for 6 or 7 
per cent. of the gainfully employed men in each region. Follow- 
ing this group are domestic service, clerical and public service 
and finally, extraction of minerals, which in these agricultural 
villages includes almost negligible proportions of the populations 
in each of the four regions. 

In presenting the data for females over ten years of age, 
Table XXVII makes it clear that except in the Middle Atlantic 
region where manufacture has first place, domestic service leads 
in the relatively large numbers of women employed. Professional 
service is another important occupation group that includes from 
one-sixth to one-quarter of the gainfully employed women in the 
different regions, while the proportions engaged in clerical oc- 
cupations and trade vary from 7 per cent. to 14 per cent. Rela- 
tively few women are classified under transportation or agricul- 
ture, while the proportion falling under public service is almost 
negligible. 


SIZE OF VILLAGE AND OCCUPATIONS 


In an effort to determine some of the causes making for 
occupational differences among villages, the Institute analyzed 
separately the occupations of the gainfully employed in villages 
of varying populations in order to find out whether size is a 
factor that modifies their occupational grouping. This com- 
putation, which is presented for each region separately in Table 
XXVIII, reveals that none of the more important occupations 
for women is consistently affected from region to region by the 
size of villages, with the possible exception of professional service 
which seems to absorb slightly greater proportions of the gain- 
fully employed females in small villages than in large ones. 
Among the men, the size of the place is a factor which ap- 
parently influences the proportions engaged in manufacturing 
pursuits. Certainly the smaller villages of each region have 


*yU99 Jod ouO jO YjUd}-200 UeYy} SsoT tf 
‘uMO} [ SOpNyouy f 
"SUMO} € SOPNoUl , 


601 yor a! 09 c8 =o Trl Ocr aeLL 8°6 4! O83 ai ee ee eee ee 
oct o Le Ze L6P v0s 0'Or auc £0e 6 62 a 0A 9°62 £ UC as Fe ee eee 
[euostod pue dIjsaw0g 
vie BSc 83=— CV SIT est eZ 9'V~ £92 9'L2 Set cst OG). SesTAtes” [EUOSSoJ OL 
£0 OT vt $°0 v0 £0 80 aa! VT £ £0 FS ee at ee SO ORE R TT ee 
A | oat Lel U3 6Z Z9 £11 Ucl Sit 8Z SZ VP ace ee ee PPR, 
= 6 Se cL eA 9°C ST LE v's 9” 6c £e Ty ‘crt * woneyodsuesy, 
pm «8 OL COL 36 6vT “4 OFT OFT weit ccl Lev LSC COU ee See CIRO RS 
th 82 6¢ A 69 LY a9 9°0 OT cl £0 £0 LQ eS OTR 
< Sa]DULI J 
HI 
4 Te ce ve 0'F cv [bs ® he Le A se 6¢ OV Ae ats eee ea eee 
= $s 7b 9°¢ Ls 6b rs CC 0S ry aC OF GQ tttttteseeeeees goradas 
jeuosiod pue odijsowo0g 
Z 9s 09 LS Sao LY c8 OZ ao 89 6v 19 96 = OS PEUOISS gy OFe] 
Aa wt LT TT o'? fC ve CC nig! 81 vt oF oS ee ee oy 
— sor ed vZT ye? 3°02 fe? LOC Tee SIC TOT LT OL le = eS Sa ee Se ee, 
es oor OTT ee! Tit ro | v6 60T ecl Zot TI TOT 6@L “"'"**"** woneztodsuery, 
Pie Grr S'0e 80F eck 3°62 0°82 Oe Cec £0E 6 LV L3P OPP 5 ee Sane Nae 
= TT S'0 £0 v0 OT 10 LT x4 TT c0 c0 CO. °° S[BsoUrTU JO UOHIBIXH 
= meee BSc - col OST 9°8T 881 8 OL al a4 | v8 08 POT “ctr tts BangMosy 
$aqp 
abiVT wmmpapy yoms abADT sre A od IHAVT wmnipapy 1joms IBAVT wnipayy 1jomsS uoujsngnIrIO 
LY nee 2 & rT &T  Cemeeee ry dae ale a E ¢T ZT 
CAT CAE 4, yinos 82M 91PPIW INUDLIE ayppry 
4UIyn dag 


026i “‘SNOIDAU Ad “AZIS DNIAUVA AO 
SHOVTIIA NI SHIVNGA GNV SHIVN GAAOI(WA ATINANIVD AHL AO SNOILVdNODO—ITIAXX AIAVL 


S 
°.2) 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 81 


somewhat lower numbers of workers classified under ‘“manu- 
facture’ than is the case among large villages. In this respect 
the widest variations are found in the middle-western region, 
where 30.3 per cent. of the men in small villages are at work in 
manufacture compared with 37.6 per cent. in the larger places. 
It is but natural that these proportions should be correlated with 
size of village. 

So far as the other occupations of the men are concerned, 
size of village seems to have relatively little effect. At least, 
there are no other consistent trends among the four regions. 


SOUTHERN NEGROES AND WHITES 


Because of the large number of Negroes living in the villages 
of the South, it is significant to know the influence of this group 
upon the distribution of occupations in southern villages. This 
can be demonstrated by working out separate totals for the 
Negroes and for the rest of the population, Such a calculation 
is presented in Table XXIX and shows that the presence of the 
Negro accounts for a number of the exceptional occupational 
tendencies found in southern villages. It explains, for instance, 
the very high proportion of southern village women engaged in 
domestic service, since 81.1 per cent. of all Negresses fall into 
this class. It also accounts for the relatively large numbers of 
women in this region that are engaged in agriculture, since 8.5 
per cent. of all Negresses are classified under this head. 


TABLE XXIX—OCCUPATIONS OF NEGROES AND WHITES 10 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER EMPLOYED IN SOUTHERN 
VILLAGES, BY SEX, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Males Females 
Occupation Negroes Whites * Negroes Whites* 
PMePRCUUUPE HCN. a Tele ou ccn coy sos 25.2 14.6 8.5 3.6 
extraction: ofamineralesfot ie. ke: 0.3 0.7 ay ‘eS 
PR ATNIPACEUT OT eine ee 44.4 25 5.3 20.2 
RRP ee OT UEC) Meee Oe, hice, wees +s 12.2 10.9 0.1 45 
APM eta te Co Or Ih cards ik 4.7 29.1 0.6 15.4 
BDUCRECE VICE Siu Ws vig coc culos kes M3 2.9 es 1.1 
Professional, service’. ei. 2.5 7.8 4.3 26.7 
Domestic and personal service ..... 10.2 <i 81.1 14.6 
(OES PERSIE cd slp IAA Og ao ts Ga 12 5.0 0.1 13.9 


* Includes the relatively few Orientals and American Indians. 


82 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Among the males, the differences between the occupational 
groupings for Negroes and for the rest of the population are not 
quite so striking as among the females; nevertheless the figures 
indicate fundamental differences between the two groups. [or 
instance, only 2.5 per cent. of the Negroes are classified under 
professional service, while among the other elements of the 
population this proportion is 7.8 per cent. In trade, the varia- 
tions are even greater, being less than 5 per cent. for Negroes 
and nearly 30 per cent. for the rest of the gainfully employed 
men. 

The wide occupational differences between Negroes and 
whites undoubtedly reflect the social cleavage that separates the 
two groups. The very fact that the proportions of men engaged 
in trade and in professional service are lower among Negroes 
and higher among whites than the averages in any other region, 
clearly indicates the extent to which these functions are concen- 
trated in the hands of southern whites. | 


““SOCIAL-ECONOMIC”’ STATUS OF VILLAGERS 


The question of social cleavage between southern Negroes 
and whites naturally introduces the whole topic of the social- 
economic status of villagers. In order to deal with this problem, 
the Institute, in addition to following the nine major occupational 
divisions of the Census, tabulated the occupational data for its 
177 agricultural villages so as to make possible a social-economic 
grouping of the gainfully employed along the lines suggested by 
Alba M. Edwards of the Census Bureau.° 

There are many advantages in classifying the gainfully em- 
ployed not alone by broad industrial divisions, such as those used 
by the Census, but in addition by the social-economic status of the 
workers. From many viewpoints it is more important to know 
that a man is an employer, a skilled worker or a laborer than to 
know he is engaged in a given field of industry. The mere fact 
that a villager is engaged in agriculture does not mean much if 
it is not known whether he is a farm owner or a farm hand. In 
a given village the manager of the local creamery is likely to 
have more in common with the owner of the drug store and the 


5 See Alba M. Edwards, “Social-Economic Groups of the United States,” 
Journal of the American Statistical Association, June, 1917. 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 83 


proprietor of the village hotel than with the hands in his own 
plant. 

On the basis of this general assumption, Mr. Edwards 
worked out a rearrangement of the regular occupational classi- 
fication of the Census Bureau into the following nine groups: 
(I) Proprietors, officials and managers, (II) Clerks and kindred 
workers, (III) Skilled workers, (IV) Semi-skilled workers, 
(V) Laborers, (VI) Servants, (VII) Public officials, (VIII) 
Semi-official public employees, and (IX) Professional persons. 

In Mr. Edwards’ own words: “The grouping of the gainful 
workers here presented is not according to skill, except in the 
case of the manual workers, whose occupations lend themselves 
more or less readily to a classification by skill. The aim has 
been merely to divide the gainful workers of the United States 
into a few large, social-economic groups.” Discussing this same 
point, Mr. Edwards writes: 


“There are those who desire a grouping of occupations ac- 
cording to skill. In many respects such a grouping, if it could 
be carried out, would be an admirable and a useful one; but a 
complete grouping of occupations according to skill is impossible, 
since many occupations do not lend themselves to such a group- 
ing. For example, proprietors usually are distinguished from 
the other workers in the same industry or business, not by a 
difference in skill but rather by a difference in the possession 
of property, credit, and business and executive ability. Where, 
in a scale of skill, would we place the policeman? Possibly we 
might, by a stretch of the imagination, classify according to skill 
the surgeon, but not the physician; the acrobat, but not the actor; 
the sculptor, but not the artist; the organist, but not the opera 
singer. Indeed, none of the proprietary, official, managerial, 
clerical, or strictly professional pursuits lends itself readily to 
a classification by skill; and it is doubtful whether any of them 
may be properly so classified; since in none of them is skill the 
chief characteristic. In fact, in a grouping such as here pre- 
sented, we can properly classify according to skill only those 
occupations in which the expenditure of muscular force is one 
of the chief characteristics. . . . In other words, it is impossible 
to draw a hard and fast line between the hand workers and the 
head workers. But such a line may be drawn sufficiently ac- 
curately for our purpose.” 


In actually applying Mr. Edwards’ social-economic classi- 
fication to its village data, the Institute made certain minor modi- 


84 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


fications in his scheme. In order to obtain somewhat greater 
accuracy the Institute classified the gainfully employed on the 
basis of the most detailed occupational information available from 
the Census, whereas Mr. Edwards was content to work out his 
scheme by simply reclassifying the larger occupational groups 
of the Census. As a result, certain minor inaccuracies crept 
into his classification. For example, because of his method of 
grouping occupations, poultry laborers were classed by Mr. Ed- 
wards as proprietors; while the Institute, which based its classi- 
fication upon the more detailed occupational groupings of the 
Census, was able to group these workers under “laborers.” Mr. 
Edwards recognized that his method of grouping introduced the 
possibility of error, but did not believe the added accuracy “‘would 
compensate for the great additional amount of labor involved” 
in working out the scheme on the more detailed basis. 

The other important change adopted by the Institute was to 
combine under one head the two groups which Mr. Edwards 
called “Public Officials and Semi-Official Public Employees.” 
This was done because it was felt that especially in villages the 
differences between these two groups were not sufficiently great to 
warrant separate classification. 


BASIS OF THE “‘SOCIAL-ECONOMIC” CLASSIFICATION 


The social-economic classification finally adopted by the In- 
stitute will be found in detail in Appendix B. Briefly it can be 
summarized as follows: 

Proprietors, officials and managers—Under this heading are 
included farm owners of all types, and owners and managers of 
manufacturing establishments, of garages, of retail stores, of 
banks, of hotels, etc. 

Clerks—In this group are included not only all persons clas- 
sified as clerks by the Census, but in addition salesmen, sales- 
women, telephone operators, and others who, although they are 
clerks, are scattered through other occupational divisions of the 
Census. 

Skilled workers—This classification comprises such highly 
skilled employees as plumbers, carpenters, blacksmiths, machin- 
ists, painters, plasterers, shoemakers and tailors. 

Semi-skilled workers—In this classification are foremen on 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 85 


farms, barbers, conductors and motormen on street railroads, 
apprentices in the building and hand trades, untrained nurses, 
etc., and also all of the large number of operatives designated 
by the Census as “semi-skilled.” 

Laborers—This group comprises all persons classified as 
laborers by the Census, and in addition includes such unskilled 
workers as teamsters and haulers, newsboys, stable hands, etc. 

Servants—Under this heading are grouped such persons as 
bootblacks, janitors, sextons, waiters, charwomen, and cleaners, 
and all employees designated as servants by the Census itself. 

Public and semi-pubiic employees—This classification groups 
together firemen, policemen, sheriffs, detectives, etc., and is identi- 
cal with the major Census classification of “Public Service” 
except that laborers, such as garbagemen, have been excluded. 

Professional persons—This classification includes doctors, 
lawyers, ministers, teachers, etc., and is identical with the Census 
division of “Professional Service,’ except that attendants and 
helpers and certain semi-professional persons such as officials of 
lodges, keepers of pleasure resorts, etc., have been excluded. 

It is obviously impossible, as Mr. Edwards himself points out, 
to group gainfully employed workers into eight classes and still 
to have the groups perfectly delimited. The divisions just pre- 
sented doubtless overlap, but so must those in any other scheme 
of classification that tries to group people into a few simple 
categories. In addition, the scheme here described probably 
contains errors of judgment. It is quite likely that certain groups 
have been classified under one head when they should have been 
placed under another. It is confidently believed, however, that 
these considerations will not seriously modify the usefulness of 
the present classification, particularly as this system has been 
applied uniformly to all the population groups here analyzed. 

Table XXX, which presents by regions the social-economic 
status of the gainfully employed villagers ten years of age and 
over, shows that on the whole the occupational groupings among 
the men are remarkably uniform. There are, of course, minor 
differences. The Middle Atlantic villages, with their unusually 
large development of manufacturing enterprises, have somewhat 
small proportions of proprietors and owners and relatively larger 
numbers of semi-skilled workers than the other regions. The 
South, with its large Negro population, has the lowest propor- 


86 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


tions of skilled workers and the highest proportions of servants. 
The economically prosperous middle-western villages have the 
largest numbers of men engaged in professional service. In 
spite of these differences, however, the similarities among re- 
gions are surprising, particularly when it is recalled how wide are 
the regional variations in the composition of village populations. 


TABLE XXX—SOCIAL-ECONOMIC STATUS OF GAINFULLY EM- 
PLOYED: VILLAGERS 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER; BY 
SEX AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Middle Far 
Social-Economic Status Atlantic West South West 
Males 
Proprietors, officials, managers ...... 18.7 224 24.4 24.8 
Bi Fh aR RRR TS ISU FORE HARUN Ui 10.9 11.9 14.1 9.3 
SS RIECLWRTRELS Ve. Ot rs haere ee eas 19.3 19.3 14.0 178 
Semi-skilled’ workers: 0.20634 seca te. 11.6 7.9 8.5 8.5 
Da tioreties te ahie gn pea ein eur ee ite core 31.0 28.3 28.1 31.3 
POEL VAUES ODES Loehrer a ahh ee cute tae 1.6 1.9 2.9 2.0 
Pablic womiciaisn as sie ee See ce eee HS Dz, 2.0 1.4 
Protessional “persons 22408 sind haoks 5.6 6.3 6.1 oa 
Females 

Proprietors, officials, managers ....... ie 11.8 8.9 15.8 
ClOPKESS EG ee Mw edcn Teme SUNK ee eae 20.3 27.8 15.5 27.9 
Skilled workers.) Oh oo euk he eo eee 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.6 
Semi-skilled workers: ...0.4...0.5 000. 28.9 10.3 7.9 14.7 
DADOPe re ye ck tee aera lio ee EN: 4.5 25 7.8 2.0 
SHOE VATIES x MUN Me Reece AN oe ae eee 16.0 20.9 44.3 15.3 
Publicnotcials ho ue ae ee hee en nas 0.Z 1] 0.5 1.1 
Protessional persons fi ¥. soe eee 16.0 24.8 14.8 Pa MY | 


In all four regions, the largest group of workers falls in the 
class of laborers, the proportions being about 28 per cent. in the 
South and Middle West, and about 31 per cent. in the Middle 
Atlantic and Far West. These are remarkably high ratios. Pro- 
prietors, owners and managers have second place everywhere 
except in the Middle Atlantic region where they rank third. The 
percentages that fall into this group range from 19 to 25. The 
skilled workers run from 14 to 19 per cent., while the relative 
number of clerks varies from 9 to 14 per cent. These four 
groups—laborers, proprietors, skilled workers and clerks—in- 
clude at least four-fifths of the gainfully employed men in the 
villages in each region. Except for the semi-skilled workers 
in the rather highly industrialized villages of the Middle At- 
lantic states, no other social-economic group of workers in- 
cludes as many as 10 per cent. of the gainfully employed. 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 87 


Among the women, the regional variations are far greater 
than among the men. In the southern villages, 44 per cent. of all 
gainfully employed women are servants, while in the other re- 
gions this ratio is from 15 to 21 per cent. The exceptionally 
high proportion found in the South is undoubtedly explained 
by the large numbers of Negroes living there. In the Middle 
Atlantic region, 29 per cent. of the women fall into the class 
of semi-skilled workers, while in the other three regions this 
proportion is from 8 to 15 per cent. This comparatively high 
ratio in the Middle Atlantic states probably reflects the greater 
opportunities for employment afforded by the manufacturing 
establishments located there. 

In the Middle West and Far West are the largest groups of 
gainfully employed women classified as clerks—28 per cent.— 
while for the South and Middle Atlantic regions the figures 
are only 16 and 20 per cent. respectively. The relative num- 
bers classed as professional persons are quite large in all re- 
gions, the ratios varying from 15 to 25 per cent. Proprietors, 
owners and managers range from 9 to 16 per cent. These five 
occupation groups—servants, semi-skilled workers, clerks, pro- 
fessional persons and proprietors—account for 91 to 96 per 
cent. of the gainfully employed women in all regions. In each 
area the number of women classified as laborers is low, being 
8 per cent. in the South, and less than 5 per cent. in the other 
regions. The proportions grouped as skilled workers and as 
public officials, are in every case less than 2 per cent. 


SOCIAL-ECONOMIC STATUS OF SOUTHERN NEGROES 


The social-economic system of classifying the gainfully em- 
ployed affords an excellent opportunity to compare the status 
of Negroes with that of the rest of the inhabitants of southern 
villages. Such data are presented in Table XX XI, and reveal that 
there are very wide differences indeed between the two groups. 
Nearly three of every five Negroes are classed as laborers 
as compared with only one in six among the rest of the gain- 
fully employed men. Among the Negroes, only one in ten is 
classed as a proprietor, compared with three in ten for the other 
elements of the population. Even this differential would be far 
greater were it not for the fact that 7.7 per cent. of all Negroes 


88 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


living in villages fall into the proprietary class because they are 
farm owners. This means that outside of agriculture, the pro- 
portion of Negroes that belong to the owning class is very small 
indeed. 


TABLE XXXI—SOCIAL-ECONOMIC STATUS OF NEGROES AND 
OF WHITES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER EMPLOYED IN 
SOUTHERN VILLAGES, BY SEX, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Males Females 
Social-Economic Status Negroes Whites * Negroes Whites * 
Proprietors, officials, managers ... 10.0 29.8 4 15.1 
LACLIS erat Milieu occ Se ree ee ee 1.8 18.6 0.4 31.9 
PME WOrkers! aus ee aR Oe 11.0 15.1 0.2 0.4 
Semi-skilled workers ............ 7.9 8.7 2.9 13.2 
BADOCELS eit ae URN tee aN AT ey 58.9 16.6 11.0 4.3 
DEDVOULS Mika es Skea ee vic EINE eatahe af Jel 78.0 7H 
HUNG Olictais hi meee Le thee 0.3 2.6 + 1.1 
Professional persons ...........-. 2.4 iS 4.2 26.3 


* Includes the relatively few Orientals and American Indians. 
t Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


Among the women the differences are just as striking. Sev- 
enty-eight per cent. of the gainfully employed Negresses are 
servants, contrasted with one-tenth of that proportion for the 
rest of the population. The largest groups of employed white 
women—almost one-third—are clerks, compared with less than 
half of one per cent. among the Negresses. More than one in 
four of the employed white women are professional persons; but 
among the Negresses this ratio is only one in twenty-four. 
These figures, therefore, help to make concrete the extent of the 
social gulf that separates the two groups. 


DETAILED OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS 


The social-economic method of classifying workers can also 
be used to supplement and illuminate the major occupational di- 
visions employed by the Census. All that is necessary is to apply 
Mr. Edwards’ scheme to each major Census division separately. 
In other words, the group of workers which the Census classi- 
fies under manufacture, transportation, etc., can be further an- 
alyzed in order to determine how many of the individuals in each 
major group belong to the proprietary, owner and managerial 
class ; how many are semi-skilled workers ; how many are laborers, 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 89 


TABLE XXXII—DETAILED OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS OF 
GAINFULLY EMPLOYED MALES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND 
OVER IN VILLAGES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. of Males 


Middle Middle Far 

Occupation and Social-Economic Status Atlantic West South West 
Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry .. 8.9 13.8 17.0 Zonas 
Proprietors, officials, managers ............ 3.8 5.0 8.1 10.4 
Semi-skilled workers panne ERIE AT A RUE sd fa 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 
LOE ae -cccn  U aie cteceits ie date ae ne & ead e 4.8 8.3 8.3 12.2 
eaeacenotl Or sineralss.:s aches + hale & © co's os wie 0.2 1.8 0.6 0.7 
Proprietors, officials, managers ............ + 0.1 0.1 0.1 
eine TPL) WHOL ROLES Pee ales sth eres ease + + ; 7 
1 SOC O SSP | eal pete Udi fe ae Me Re BD a Vee Ae eae 0.2 tz 0.5 0.6 
Manufacturing and mechanical industries .... 47.3 33.8 30.6 31.6 
Proprietors, ollcials, matiagers .'..4'. 0.25.5). 25 1.6 1.4 1.5 
RETICLE WOT KET S le'dy belo aie so ele dae heat ae 18.8 19.0 13.6 16.8 
SSE Micshilicti WOLKELS joss ae ae eee en ete es Zot 2.4 3.6 2.4 
LAWL Sot on Mates seal Sis APNE Er irae ARG ar ae aa 18.9 10.8 12.0 10.9 
JS cary aT Eh SARA RINE Ree Pan anor pay, 12.0 13 12.0 
Proprietors, officials, managers ............ 1.1 1.6 be 1.3 
Ree ee eRe hee NTN NON ET re da Wal cad aca « eit Pod | 1.6 1.2 
PPB OTR ELS Wak cone ceca ce heise ees 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.7 
BG MIE=SIRTLICCL EE WOPKEDS (as cles col siaitis Wo vale's wale (eq 2.0 1.9 2.1 
Se are tats Vc cote aie acs te eid hicicotnels ata hoa + 5.9 6.0 6.3 6.7 
ICRI IE ic oie ge saree vee s che wedenles 7 22.0 22.4 16.7 
Pronrictors,, Olicials;, Managers. .d,.L's <.. «% 10.4 b SE 12.8 10.0 
CR Ee Ee eee oe eae icy ee aha he veh ones na gle 4.9 6.7 8.5 48 
Beni sictlled WOLKErS) «1s sete bale cave ces e's 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 
PEC Alas Pcs telte cies ote baked cls «wm ausie wats i 1.4 0.6 0.8 
SIMIC SELVICOUL. ditde yy ce Weve es aide er as cee « 1.4 1.8 Za 1.5 
SL MERE Me Gn, AR ee kd Sh sinrstoln dele tes 23 hye 2.0 1.4 
Le ESE SE 1 ail) elas “a URES ARC ue Oa a ihe 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 
PeOM ear a SCT VICE. 64 & ¢ he's void o vid alee es pips cone 5.8 6.7 6.3 5.8 
BrP eet Oia VOCLEONS. vic 0 3c sia <is cs ues bry ase's be 6.3 6.0 5.3 
DEM chiled + WOLKEES © «ess ccs dcc eve oe se 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 
Domestic and personal service ........5..... 3.7 5.0 os 5.1 
Preorietors, olictals, managers ..¢... 46s 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.4 
Semi skilled workers). lbcctivessevss ches LZ 1.7 25 1.7 
Sloe tS nied UAC 4 ph AE ROR PEND BNI UM 1.6 1.9 2.8 2.0 
Mer Oe er OE, oe Ee rials | Nan de wa orale etoile 3.9 54 | 4.0 mo 


* Includes semi-official employees. 
{ Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


etc. Table XXXII presents these data by regions for the gain- 
fully employed villagers ten years of age and over. 
Beginning with the division which the Census classifies as 


90 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


agriculture, the table shows that the majority of gainfully em- 
ployed men are not farm owners but laborers. In every region 
there are more farm laborers living in villages than there are 
farm owners. ‘This is a significant social fact because it indi- 
cates the extent to which the village is a station for the supply 
of farm hands. It also means that the village is not used as a 
place of residence hy farm owners to anything like the extent 
the Census totals for agriculture might lead one to believe. 

The large groups of workers falling under the Census term 
“Manufacturing and mechanical industries’ are mainly of two 
classes—skilled workers or laborers. Except in the Middle At- 
lantic region where industrialization in villages seems to be 
further advanced than in the other areas, there are but few semi- 
skilled workers engaged in manufacturing. This situation can 
probably be explained by the fact that industries in villages must 
necessarily be conducted on a small scale; and therefore it does 
not pay to supplant the skilled worker by the introduction of ex- 
pensive machines operated by semi-skilled workers. About one 
man in twenty engaged in manufacturing is a proprietor. 

At least half the villagers engaged in transportation are la- 
borers, and most of the remainder are clerks or semi-skilled 
persons. Roughly, one out of ten men at work in this field is a 
proprietor. Very few are skilled workers. These figures re- 
flect the fact that many of the gainfully employed in this occu- 
pational division are merely local representatives of great rail- 
roads, telephone, telegraph companies and the like. 

In trade, on the other hand, the majority of the men in vil- 
lages are proprietors, while most of the remainder are clerks. 
The fact that there are many more proprietors than clerks at 
work in trade indicates, as one would expect, that in villages re- 
tail establishments are run on a small scale. 

The group of men classed by the Census under “Public 
Service” is composed almost entirely of officials; but in every 
case there are a few laborers. It is only in the South, however, 
that laborers constitute an appreciable number of this group. 

In each region, “Professional Service” includes a small group 
of semi-skilled workers in addition to the strictly professional 
persons such as doctors, lawyers, ministers and teachers. 

“Domestic Service” is composed of three social-economic 
classes, no one of which is in the majority. Servants make up 


WHAT DO VILLAGERS DO FOR A LIVING? 91 


the largest group of workers; next come semi-skilled workers, 
who comprise about one-third of the entire occupational divi- 
sion; and, finally, there is the group of proprietors, consisting 
of hotel keepers, restaurant owners, etc. 

TABLE XXXIII—DETAILED OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS OF 


GAINFULLY EMPLOYED FEMALES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND 
OVER IN VILLAGES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. of Females 


Middle Middle Far 
Occupation and Social-Economic Status Atlantic West South West 
Agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry .. 0.7 0.8 6.1 Ba} 
Proprietors, officials, managers ...........- 0.5 LZ 22 
RISE LEU OWOLKELG Valin s'cc c's Seowtee so ataie o's 7 0.1 0.1 0.1 
PUMP OLS We rare ke Peale slat eieian vicleia wielcety w St 0.2 0.2 4.8 0.8 
Manufacturing and mechanical industries .... 36.1 127 i 10.3 
Proprietors, officials, managers .../........ 8.5 jes 4.7 6.4 
eel OT OTS Me tas vis kak RM e alk Sars 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.6 
Pee APARNA OCKETS IS Win siaidls Vins seus a's saa w Z2V5 2.0 4.7 2.4 
PEEP eet snk kite wag tiae tuna eae 4.2 20 2.8 0.9 
TE ECB CH SRE APIG TIC vieicg Ve als ert Qik a ¥ v's o1a'e ess art nls 3.7 4.6 Zan 4.9 
Proprietors, officials, managers ............ 0.1 + + 0.2 
ee ede NO od legis ayy ek We 9 be 3.5 4.5 2.0 4.6 
UEC CMON WETS 0d orld sc ties oie a Mees wie hi ginisla'e’s wa oe a on 
Beet Pei TNCCE MWOLKETS | vine or)d ok eS s < «als aes 0.1 iy 0.1 An 
Dea RC aa re haa Os watts ls Wate ercee eek omen 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 
SE IV te I Canes alo vied Welerete aos iain 6.6 11.8 vig 13.8 
Proprietors, officials, ‘managers... .. «4 «:.'s'.).'. 12 1.4 0.9 2.4 
PBL eae 1 NI ar I Agr ORF I aden RSP gE 5.3 10.3 6.7 9.5 
SIGS AION WOTKELS.. 5 cee eine 6 thie vb neta e one Ae: + + 1.9 
EE ERIE Ut Cire ini tel sd ol re seeat orm ttOd: HE eiKiare 0.1 0.1 0.1 + 
PREECE TIC CON, ae ais Fula gn a al niare Pia ev Serene here (hs 0.2 1.1 0.5 1.0 
PALS IC aie e ow eon sige as Cee te Sele hod 0.2 1.1 0.5 1.0 
MRAP E A RC ee ee vis’, tis wee vaca ee ¥ a Meds 2 ys ‘ ; ar um 
PCPS PeE ICMR SEL VICE Ls Co fac oee ead seams seats 16.3 25.8 150°4. 238 
PPE SSI a PELSOUN U2 sto%e) de suejs a hakegnitld ol 16.0 24.8 14.8 VPAE | 
Tait WOE KEEN cus do ears de igh bots Vatelatns 0.3 1.0 0.2 ha 
Domestic and personal service .............+. 24.9 30.4 492 29.2 
Proprietors, officials, managers ............ 2) 2.4 pa | 4.6 
emi Ed WOLKETS Wiss coos ae dc ne ee alae’ 7.0 4 2.8 9.3 
OPS ORG as cae cook as toda wate be oelk 15.9 20.8 44.3 15.3 
Ee eee RG ate Ane se ee biases Ug de on Oa ee Oats Beh 12.8 6.8 13.9 


*Tncludes semi-official employees. 
+ Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


Table XXXIII presents for the gainfully employed women 
in villages the same data that Table XXXII presented for the 
men, and is particularly valuable because it helps to account 


92 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


for many of the occupational variations among regions. For 
instance, it demonstrates that the number of southern women 
that are engaged in agriculture is relatively large because so 
many in this group are employed as farm laborers. Further 
analysis indicates that these Jaborers are largely Negresses, 
since 7.6 per cent. of all the gainfully employed Negro women 
fall into this subgroup, compared with 1.9 per cent. for the 
white women. The table also shows that in the Middle Atlantic 
states the high proportion of village women engaged in manu- 
facture is explained mainly by the unusual opportunities for 
semi-skilled employment afforded by the manufacturing enter- 
prises located there. | 

These conclusions, and others that may be drawn from the 
tables just presented, so clearly demonstrate the value of the 
social-economic method of classifying gainfully employed workers 
that the method will also be employed in the next chapter, which 
attempts to ascertain the distinguishing peculiarities of villagers. 


CHAPTER VI 


WHAT ARE THE DISTINGUISHING PECULIARITIES 
OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS? 


Thus far this analysis of the composition and characteristics 
of village populations has been confined to data relating solely 
to situations within villages themselves, and no attempt has 
been made to discover the distinguishing peculiarities of village 
populations. An attempt will now be made to discover these 
peculiarities by comparing situations in villages with the situa- 
tions in other places. 

The discussion falls into three main parts. First, the compo- 
sition and characteristics of village populations will be com- 
pared with those of cities. Next, the facts about villages will 
be compared with the data for the population of the remaining 
rural areas. Finally, an effort will be made to ascertain whether 
in their composition and characteristics the people living in vil- 
lages more nearly resemble the people in cities or those living in 
the open country. This last question is important because, 
if the facts should show that villagers differ as much from open- 
country dwellers as from city inhabitants, it would mean that 
much rural sociology would have to be revised since it is based 
upon the tacit assumption that rural populations—both village 
and open-country—are much alike. 


VILLAGERS VS. CITY DWELLERS 


As a basis for contrasting village and urban conditions, it 
was decided, first of all, to compare by regions the findings of 
the Institute’s special tabulation of 177 agricultural villages 
with similar facts for thirty-eight medium-size cities. The cities 
included in this group all have diversified industries. Geographi- 
cally they are widely scattered, eight being located in the far-west- 
ern area while the other three regions are represented by ten each. 


1 These cities are—Middle Atlantic: Amsterdam, Auburn, Binghamton, 
Elmira, Jamestown and Rome in New York, and Allentown, Harrisburg, Lan- 
93 


94 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Their populations range from 25,585 ? to 104,437,° and aggregate 
1,958,208. 

Table XXXIV, which presents certain comparisons between 
these medium-size cities and the villages, shows rather consistent 
tendencies. In all four regions, the percentage of the popula- 
tion that is native white is higher in villages than in cities. In 
other words, village inhabitants constitute on the whole a more 
homogeneous population group than do city dwellers. In every 
case, home ownership is more frequent in villages than in cities 
and indicates that the villager is less apt than is the city dweller 
to drift from place to place. This should make for social sta- 
bility within the village. In each area, the proportions of both 
old men and old women living in villages are higher than in 
cities, giving villages a tendency toward greater conservatism. 
Without exception, the proportions of the boys and girls attend- 
ing school are higher in villages than in cities. This undoubtedly 
reflects the fact that in villages there are fewer opportunities 
for gainful employment in industry. These figures, therefore, 
confirm the general impression that villagers constitute a more 
homogeneous and more conservative population group than do 
the inhabitants of cities. 

The comparative data for occupations, which are given in 
Table XXXV, also show that on the basis of the Census scheme 
of classification there are consistent differences among regions. 
As might have been expected, the proportion of men engaged in 
“Agriculture” is decidedly higher in villages than in cities; while 
the proportion of those in “Manufacture” is lower in villages. 
The percentages of those engaged in “Professional Service’ are 
comparatively high in villages, while “Clerical Occupations” 
are far less important in villages than in cities. 


caster and York in Pennsylvania; Middle West: Jackson, Mich.; Richmond, Ind. ; 
Green Bay, Wis.; Decatur and Peoria, Ill.; Dubuque and Sioux City, Iowa; Lin- 
coln, Neb.; Topeka and Wichita, Kans.; South: Mobile, Ala.; Little Rock, Ark. ; 
Augusta, Ga.; Lexington, Ky.; Charlotte and Wilmington, N. C.; Knoxville, 
Tenn.; Austin and Waco, Texas, and Roanoke, Va.; Far West: Fresno, Sacra- 
mento, San Jose and Stockton in California, and Bellingham, Everett, Spokane 
and Tacoma in Washington. 

2 Cities with fewer than 25,000 inhabitants were not included in this group 
because for places below that size the Census does not publish sufficiently 
detailed information. 

3 Metropolitan areas above this size were omitted from the present com- 
parison because it was thought best to deal with these larger places as a separate 
group. This will be done in a later section. 

4 Because of the small size of the village sample, no attempt was made to 
apply purely mathematical tests in order to discover whether these and similar 
differences were significant. Instead, it was assumed that differences were sig- 
nificant when they recurred consistently from region to region. 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 95 


TABLE XXXIV—COMPOSITION OF MEDIUM-SIZE CITY* AND 
VILLAGE POPULATONS, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Atlantic Middle W est South Far West 
10 34Vil- 10 65Vil- 10 44Vil- & 34Vil- 


Item Cities lages Cuties lages Cities lages Cities lages 
Population: 
Native white ........ 84.8 94.9 87.2 88.9 69.6 71.7 78.5 88.1 
Foreign-born white .. 13.2 4.4 9.7 10.2 pA Dake 18.6 10.4 
Oe 0 aE eR 2.0 0.7 SLA A US este 207 299 FS 
Illiterates 10 years and 
over: 
Native white ........ 06 0.5 05 08 LAA Nee 0.2 0.4 
Foreign-born white .. 16.4 10.3 Sones 9.6 38.3 Soe 
OIOLEG esse ci laos 8.2 9.4 G59 12.6 18.4 24.9 8.8 14.9 
Tenure of homes: f 
POPUP ote stale ea « c 58.0 39.3 ous De 63.0 47.3 52.4 43.6 
RSET ii tcie a's wm aha’ ates 40.6 59.0 48.1 66.2 34.5 49.2 45.9 53.5 | 
Ratio of males to females 96.4 88.0 99.3 95.1 93.6 94.3 107.7 105.2 
Males 
Age: f 
REC EM LU ibe das a o's ateke's 18.3 16.3 17.5 18.2 18.9 22.3 16.1 19.1 
ROLOPCU yeh c cairo oa ok 15.9 15.4 1552175 17.7 19.8 14.6 16.6 
POE A aan a ae 41.4 33.4 42.9 32.9 43.2 36.5 42.5 36.8 
BETO OOM Te cette of. 6 « 19.2 23.8 18.8 21.4 16.4 16.3 Bit 20.2 
Pee aldnOver iv. '..% ss 5.1 11.0 Be iy, OD A 4S es) 


Marital condition, 15 
years and over: f 


PEG 5 vita ko fs SAG P2085 SSG S190 10 53.0 232.70) (62 74G30 
BR RURE ORL TE ee i5 hh ot 4.4. she 61.8 66.1 OO. O17)" 60:9 (6L 45 56.74 60.2 
PURER footie te sss c pn MAES AeeO7, SAR PSL 44 5.2 
EPPOECER fe. h 5c 00) 20s O56 F035 14 0.6 OCa0:3 16 14 


School attendance: 
7 to 21 years of age.. 69.6 75.5 69.3 78.9 67.6 71.6 74.0 76.1 


Females 
Age: 7 
RTO Ore LU eck, . iat e Wis te ld 17.1 17.0 17.8 20.5 16.9 19.7 
LE eye, | Ue ae 16.0 15.2 16.8 18.2 1S: Fiael 0 16.8 18.8 
PAP Ute es oh ola oe tas 41.1 33.8 43.0 35.2 449 388 43.2 37.6 
Me LOaIOG ce dieen 6 ould. 18.9 24.4 17.6: 20:2 14.5 14.4 LBS 17S 
Oa aNd OVET 22 soos cas OeielZ.3 Lah ee nyt Wy ES YH) 48 6.3 
Marital condition, 15 
years and over: 

SGtewr er 8, es 28.9 26.7 Fine Wat oe | 27.0 28.4 24.7 © 22.6 
PREFER Te er cete ty 57.9 56.3 58.4 57:4 56.1 56.6 61.1 63.5 
Pewee oe es, 1299-104 8 BOS hes 15.35 e14.2 1196 124 
BSc) ce ot Ce ee ee OF 6.0.5 15 0.9 14 0.5 ZAGWLES 


School attendance: 
7 to 21 years of age.. 663 748 67.6 78.1 66:2." 72.508 S 729877753 


* The cities used in the comparison were limited to places with diversified industries 
whose populations range between 25,585 and 104,437. 

t The “Unknowns” have been omitted from these comparisons, therefore percentages 
do not total 100. 


96 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Curiously enough, the proportions engaged in “Trade” are 
not consistently higher in villages than in cities. This is the 
more surprising when it is recalled that this comparison is lim- 
ited to agricultural villages, ie., to places located in farming 
areas and which act as service stations to the inhabitants of the 
surrounding countryside. It would be but natural to assume 
that in places of this type, trade would have greater importance 
than in cities; but this is not the case. Indeed, in the Far West, 
the proportion of men engaged in trade is greater in cities than 
in villages. 


TABLE XXXV—OCCUPATIONS OF MEDIUM-SIZE CITY* AND 
VILLAGE POPULATIONS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 10 YEARS 
OF AGE AND OVER, BY SEX AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Atlantic Middle West South Far West 
10 34Vil- 10 65Vil- 10 44Vil- 8 34Vil- 


Occupation Cities lages Cities lages Cities lages Cuties lages 
Males 

AGTICHIIACe a’. santas als LO LRS.9 RANE ies 20 VGA 7 Oia 
Extraction of minerals .. 0.1 0.2 09 18 0.4 0.6 0.8. C7 
Mantifactire lity dea ba 56.2 47.3 44.4 33.8 39.4 30.6 40.9 31.6 
PPrAnsportation tes) vanes LoL 135.690 12.0 157 52103 12.1 Vaed 
TPAde ase. on wee make 13.3.7 1741 18.9 22.0 19.1 22.4 18.0 16.7 
Pubhesservicewi a «fas YA AD FAN ees Bes AL a5 IRELAND 
Professional service .... 40 5.8 47 6.7 FZ Gas 52 ye 
Domestic and _ personal 

SEEVICE Wek ea ceri h ees A QO: 49% 5.0 7 Ob 45S 64 5.1 
Clerical Wares + Rtas este 69 0.9 3.2) ck 8.3 4.0 7. aged 

Females 

BA OTICUIEUIT ES cece feo Pees WA Bers bbs 02 0.8 0.4 6.1 0.4 3.1 
Manitacture (L250, nee 46.5 36.1 18.2:62.7 17d 12.9 10.3 
‘Dransportarion (i. <- a0" Th Pay oH) 3.0 4.6 7a Ye eA 3.8 4.9 
Trade sustain deem vena we 8.6 6.6 130VATS re cin re ey 14.6 13.8 
Pubiiccservice kaw ves seas Oe Og 2a e i et G1 05 0.3 7-20 
Professional service .... 87 16.3 14.6 25.8 10.1 15.0 18.0 23.8 
Domestic and personal 

BEPWICE He. Fenians 18.9 24.9 25.4 30.4 49.2 49.2 26.6 29.2 
Glencalbouee eee als ee 15.5705 25.4 12.8 13.4 ° 68 23.4 13.9 


* The cities used in the comparison were limited to places with diversified industries 
whose populations ranged between 25,585 and 104,437. 

Among the women, the occupational differences, as between 
cities and villages, show tendencies much the same as those 
among the men; the percentages of villagers engaged in agricul- 
ture and professional service being relatively high, while the 
numbers employed in manufacture and clerical occupations are 
comparatively low. 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 97 


In addition to the occupational differences between villages 
and cities there are also similarities in the two population groups. 
With the exception of agriculture, which is naturally an un- 
usually important field of work in villages, there is a one to 
one correspondence between villages and cities in the ranking of 
those occupational groups into which fall more than 10 per 
cent. of the gainfully employed men. In all four regions manu- 
facture comes first among the men in both the villages and the 
cities; trade has second place and transportation is third. 


TABLE XXXVI—SOCIAL-ECONOMIC STATUS OF MEDIUM-SIZE 
CITY* AND VILLAGE POPULATIONS GAINFULLY EM. 
PLOYED 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY SEX AND BY 
REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Atlantic Middle West South Far West 

Social-Economic 10 34Vil- 10 65Vil- 10 44 Vjj- 8 34Vil- 

Status Cities lages Cities lages Uae lages Cities lages 

ales 
Proprietors, officials, man- 

2 TES ON a at 5 ec 105%18:7 T5¢Pe 227 Iles 4 14.4 248 
OT ESS Se a ee ea 12.7 10.9 167., 119 16.3 14.1 155047719:3 
Skilled workers ........ pte Big ASB: 24.9 19.3 20.4 14.0 229-175 
Semi-skilled workers 26.7 11.6 L560 7-9 15:1 8&5 145 8&5 
BURP e reign ster oy 16.3 31.0 20.0... 28.3 25.0892531 LO 38h Ss 
er a eee ens tle 22 v6 2.03 19 47 29 Soe 0 
Srobiicsomeiais + fo pA Aol Bee: BOR ay PSR oe By 
Professional persons SAMS AS) G53 46 6.1 AS) 5:3 
IURAWIE ss ke 0.9 ail OS aaa 0.8 we Lids 

Females 
Proprietors, officials, man- 

Sep sres oh ee ee, 6.270122 7.2 TES PLR ES 10.6 15.8 
AES 10) eae ae 24.4 20.3 39.2 27.8 Fi Phe gc taes 38.7 27.9 
Skilled workers ........ Vay Lele 09 OS 7arg) Ss LOe,0.6 
Semi-skilled workers 45.9 28.9 19.3 10.3 16.9 7.9 Li ps Ge tl? 
POL yaa its ae ee 2:0. 24:5 ZO AS DOMEN 7c PAN RN, 
STE Cy ea 11.9 16.0 16.1 20.9 40.8 443 13.8 15.3 
Public officialsf ....... Lee Oe Oe 1 0.1 0.5 Uiaameil 
Professional persons 8.0 16.0 13.0 24.8 O38 148 1G. 27227 

MRO aa ae fat: lk 0.1 Aes 0.3 ae 0.1 rp. Oe yaw ike 


* The cities used in the comparison were limited to places with diversified industries 
whose populations range between 25,585 and 104,437. 
ft Includes semi-official employees. 

In spite of these similarities, however, there are apparently 
basic differences in occupational status between village and urban 
dwellers; as is clearly indicated by Table XXXVI, which pre- 
sents the social-economic status of the two population groups. 
These figures reveal that among the employed village men of each 
region the relative number of proprietors, officials and managers 


98 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


is at least 70 per cent. greater than among city men. Laborers, 
too, are in every region more numerous in the villages, while 
clerks and skilled and semi-skilled workers are less numerous. 

The social-economic status of women also shows sharp con- 
trasts. In every case the villages have female proprietors, of- 
ficials and managers, and professional persons in decidedly larger 
numbers than have the cities, but lower proportions of clerks 
and semi-skilled workers. Servants are relatively more numer- 
ous in villages than in cities. 

Thus it becomes evident that despite the fact that the gain- 
fully employed men in villages are (with the exception of those 
in “Agriculture” ) distributed over the main fields of industry 
in proportions much the same as those for city workers, never- 
theless there are essential differences between the two popula- 
tion groups in the social-economic status of their gainfully em- 
ployed. 

Without question, the explanation for these variations lies 
in the fact that industrial life in villages is far less complex than 
in cities. Modern methods of big business have not yet affected 
village life to the same extent as life in cities. One does not find 
in villages the large stores and factories of the cities. Instead, 
industry is conducted on a narrow scale by small shopkeepers 
and proprietors. This is the fundamental fact which accounts 
for differences in the social-economic status of villagers and 
city dwellers. 

It may be felt that the contrast between villages and cities 
is not convincing because it is not fair to consider the condi- 
tions in thirty-eight medium-size cities as representative of the 
urban situation as a whole. 

If the figures had been available, it might have been desir- 
able to compare the village averages with similar figures for the 
total urban populaticn in the four regions. ‘This is not possible, 
however, because the necessary information about occupations 
is not available for cities under 25,000. But it is possible to 
take a different group of cities as a basis for comparing urban 
and village conditions. This is the purpose of Tables XXXVII 
and XXXVIII, which present an analysis of the composition 
and characteristics of a large city in each region. The four 
places included are Philadelphia, St. Louis, Atlanta and San 
Francisco. The data show that as between villages and metro- 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 99 


TABLE XXXVII—COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATIONS OF 
SPECIFIED CITIES, 1920 


Per Cent. 
San 
Item Philadelphia Atlanta St. Louis Francisco 
Population: 
PigVervenite es i ires s suet cake c. 70.7 66.3 77.5 69.0 
Foreign-born white ........... 21.8 2.4 13.4 Ahid 
PORE ees Lae hcl Hee os 7.5 or. 9.1 3.3 
Illiterates 10 years and over: 
Native: whiteness Ay Phas, 0.3 1:2 0.5 0.2 
Foreign-born white ........... 12.8 4.8 10.1 4.8 
SCLEUL YT ee. me een re ee 4,7 17.8 8.2 9.6 
Tenure of homes: * 
TES Cai Blade 2 A NED AP 59.5 74.3 Zouk 71.1 
RATION AE Nee Yh 38.8 24.4 23.4 26.9 
Ratio of males to females ....... 99.1 92.6 98.4 116.6 
Males 
Age: * 
Meer aL OstRe eg foe's Cok Boy 545 5 19.2 18.1 15.8 12.2 
RMN Ue Rat shot ce Rede te aa E 16.2 17.3 ise 12.6 
UN OG I Benet ed ag ea a 43.0 47.0 45.1 49.1 
LT TEY ST Ades SOR alr ty 17.9 14.8 19.5 22 
RIE ATULCOVED INN. fc eco rad. 57 2.8 3.8 4.0 
Marital condition 15 years and 
over: 
SY) Chg satiate, ERIN ho 35.9 32.6 36.5 43.8 
ese el er aes: Cat eat 58.4 61.7 57.7 47.3 
ROW oer, ey ee ce al bs 4.7 4.3 
MIVOLCEC Ore Ts Seek ck 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.9 
School attendance: 
Pitorel years of age <.2.....6. 67.3 62.7 64.7 68.5 
Females 
Age: * 
Bere Oi reede at ee coe cee ee 18.8 16.5 15:2 14.1 
LATE eS 9 NR Ni oo aa 16.4 18.0 16.5 a7, 
CAICG) CUS ht a a ae 42.6 48.6 45.8 48.7 
SECO SPy MMT ee UA ek 17.5 13.4 17.9 18.7 
MMIC AOYET I, Ord aie ioc ay 4.7 3.5 4.5 4.6 
Marital condition 15 years and 
over: 
SIG M TS ee oe hoe wher ni 30.9 24.8 29.5 28.3 
AEE S Es OGRA sR om 56.0 56.8 55.4 54.5 
RVIDOWOR Sees cas oat Po 12.6 17.6 13.9 14.1 
mOrCe een oar 0.4 0.7 1, 2.9 
School attendance: 
wtO ed Vearsiol ave ..4 0... ... 65.1 61.6 60.9 67.4 


* The “Unknowns” have been omitted from these comparisons, therefore percentages 


do not total 100, 


100 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


politan centers the differences are, on the whole, even greater 
than those already discovered between villages and medium-size 
cities; but the variations do not essentially modify the contrast 
already presented. 


TABLE XXXVIII—OCCUPATIONS AND SOCIAL-ECONOMIC 
STATUS OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 10 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER BY SEX, IN SPECIFIED CITIES, 1920 


Per Cent. 

San 
Occupation Philadelphia Atlanta Ae t. Louis Francisco 
ales 

WR TICLE iw sod ote wee ake 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.8 
Extraction of minerals .......... 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 
Manuracrure sons sous ace ait eh 5231 34.1 44.9 34.7 
SU PATISHOLFALIOIN th davis da ain 6 twee ok 10.1 14.2 Lis 11.9 
Pe ate ice 4 tebe acl Mie ee Paes 14.9 21.7 17.6 17.4 
PIG SS Er VICEA fie tes 5 bn en alee ot 3.6 0 27. 7o 
Professional. service aos sok. 552.5 4.3 52 4.2 5.6 
Domestic and personal service ... 5.2 8.2 6.9 10.6 
Clerical Bae eee hr aes Elda 9.1 12.2 1 9.9 

Females 
APTICHILULE ts Pel case cak eer as ee - 0.1 0.1 0.1 
Eextraction-of miiteralan: ek ss i * 14 
MI ATIEACLULE Fea ee ce CG ee ea ap 34.4 14.6 29.1 18.1 
LT OUSPOLTAUION YS fe, Se ace sate cas Japa 3.0 Zl 3.8 
PRE ra gee ee ob ids cena tie 9.4 6.2 9.2 12.5 
PUBIC SAPVICE woes ils oe os ale oes 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 
Protessional ‘serviceiwits ean eek 79 7.4 7.9 13.9 
Domestic and personal service ... 24.7 49.6 28.3 22.9 
fleeicd ly tar tet en aoe see lhe Aes 21.0 18.9 22.6 28.5 

Social-Economic Status Males 

Proprietors, officials, managers .. Lisl 137, 15 12.8 
Ch ra kre epee ik 1) Se Meee oye 15.2 eae 20.0 18.0 
Slailledy workers: faa. eee kh cen 26.5 19.0 20.5 19.9 
Semi-skilled . workers’ ..00544<.5. oe 14.9 19.7 16.8 
Laporerd ii ie oe eee ta ee 14.4 17.3 17.5 1i2Z 
OMVANTS Oven Sastre ODER eth os 5.8 4.9 7.0 
PUBIC  OHICIAISTE COs aN ee ee 3.3 2.3 ous 7 
Professional persons ............ 4.0 4.8 3.8 Sie 

Females 
Proprietors, officials, managers .. Lz 6.5 8.2 10.7 
Clépics ini d dette. cos ale eee 30.4 26.7 Pade 41.5 
THEA “AVOT KEL 2 hoe iss cranes ak 1.4 0.6 1.4 1.6 
Semi-skilled workers ........... 34.9 17.3 27.6 19.8 
LERTOTERS cee cio Met stone Weald es Riek oes 0.8 1.9 2.1 1.1 
ECV ANTS cya ceases ved ue oe 18.1 40.3 21.0 12.6 
Public Oincia sic 1 own ocean 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 
Professional persons ............ 7.1 6.6 e' vB. 


* Less than one-tenth of one per cent, 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 101 


Having compared the composition and characteristics of 
village dwellers with those of city inhabitants, the discussion 
will now turn to a similar comparison between village and open 
country. 


VILLAGERS VS. OPEN-COUNTRY DWELLERS 


Because the Census combines both village and open-country 
populations under one head, “rural,” the necessary data from 
which to determine the extent of differences in the composition 
and characteristics of these two population groups have not 
hitherto been available. But the Institute’s special tabulation 
now makes such data available, because it furnishes a basis for 
analyzing village and open-country dwellers separately. All 
that is necessary is to subtract from the total rural population, 
as given by the Census, the estimated village population as 
worked out on the basis of the Institute’s Census count of vil- 
lages. The remainder will be the estimated totals for open- 
country populations alone, which can then be compared with the 
data revealed by the Census count of villages. 

It may be argued that this procedure is unwarranted because 
the Institute’s special tabulation was confined to agricultural vil- 
lages, and therefore that it is unfair to arrive at an estimate of 
the composition and characteristics of all villagers on the basis 
of the Census count. This argument does not have much weight, 
because the very fact that the Institute’s tabulation was limited 
to agricultural villages would tend to minimize rather than to 
accentuate any differences that may exist between village and 
open-country inhabitants. It stands to reason that the composi- 
tion and characteristics of open-country dwellers more nearly re- 
semble the inhabitants of agricultural villages than they resemble 
those of industrial villages. If, therefore, the facts show that 
there are wide differences between open-country dwellers and 
the inhabitants of agricultural villages, it follows that the dif- 
ferences between open-country dwellers and the inhabitants of 
all villages would, in reality, be even more marked than such 
figures would indicate. Thus it becomes clear that the sug- 
gested method of analysis serves to underestimate the actual 
differences between the population groups concerned. 

Table XX XIX presents the comparison between village and 


102 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XXXIX—COMPOSITION OF OPEN-COUNTRY AND 
VILLAGE POPULATIONS, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Middle Atlantic Middle West 


Open 34 
Coun- Vil- 
Item try lages 
Population : 
Natives witteuid sie. 81.1 94.9 
Foreign-born white .. 168 4.4 
COlGtEC Wisies coon 21AWEDT 
Illiterates 10 years and 
over: 


Native white ti 
Foreign-born white .. 24. 
Colored 9. 


Rented wy Nate e ones 41.2 39.3 
(Gy Tote heey a Ee 56.6 59.0 
Ratio of males to females 118.1 88.0 
Age: * 
Wadetyl0 obs dee, ote BEES BAe" 
TORU oe ahi nk i hy 20.0 15.4 
BURG De sak see ek 34.8 33.4 
CEH Coin’ do LAD ae 11) 16.2 23.8 
65 aridtpver Aucune: 4.1 11.0 
Marital condition 15 
years and over: * 
ingles Aw ee ee 37.5 26.8 
Married’ te Siem 56.9 66.1 
Widowed” 3.58. FR 49 6.7 
Divorced Veta, 0:3 7 073 
School attendance: 
7 to 21 years of age. 65.7 75.5 
Age: * 
Under F10 See ae 28.8 14.2 
10 tors 20 ies eae 2u0e NS 2 
ZENG, wore wees 34.6 33.8 
BONE Ga eh een 127i CAA 
OSvandi over ui weet 29181253 
Marital condition 15 
years and over: * 
SING oh ey ee aoe! 252 26A 
PASTLiGd Gee wae fed 67.8 56.3 
Widewed cies a 6.6 16.4 
DVO CeH SS ek 0.2 0.5 
School attendance: 
7 to 21 years of age. 68.3 748 


*The “Unknowns” have been omitted from these comparisons, 


de not total 100, 


Per Cent. 
South Far West 
Open 65 Open 44 Open 34 
Coun- Vil- Coun- Vil- Coun- Vil- 
try lages try lages try lages 
90.2 88.9 69.9 71.7 172 Seek 
8.7 1110.2 15) a6 16.7 10.4 
Lik. G9 28.6 26.7 6. esis 
1.4 0.8 Spl Geer Bas 
S243 C/o 14.2. .105 
Vs Wa” 29.9 24.9 0.6 14.9 
35.7) 32.2 54.6 47.3 36.4 43.6 
61,.5%.00:2 42.1 49.2 60.1 535 
115.0 95.1 6107.0 94.3) 134.601 
Males 
OA MT ESP ZY ieee 21.3 194 
20.6 17.5 24.1 19.8 17.3.01160 
34.5 32.9 SOF. a0ko 39.2 36.8 
1652134 13546 17:5: 202 
Sey 40 4.7 RA hob et | 
36.9 31.9 BRE GPAs, 43.0 33.0 
5725. 61-7. 61.3 61.4 50.9 60.2 
48 5.7 47 454 46 5.2 
0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 Ll is 
67.9 78.9 ee eS ae 70.6 76.1 
Females 
23.97 012.0 2a9 205 28.4 19.7 
21.4 18.2 24.5. 721-0 20.3 18.8 
34:21 35.2 32:0) one 36.5. SAG 
14.2 20.2 10.7 14.4 12.4 17.5 
459 2 aval wo 24 6.3 
24.5 28.1 LAT 234 20,1 W228 
67.6 57.4 65.5 56.6 72.4 63.5 
Fi2inloo Ole 142 6.6 12.4 
D3 sarn).2 0.6.05 0.6: 35S 
70.8 78.1 63.68 72.0 76.4 77.3 


therefore percentages 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 103 


open-country populations; and makes it clear that there are im- 
portant differences between the two population groups, not only 
in the matter of school attendance, but on such fundamental 
points as age-distribution and sex-distribution. In every region 
the ratio of men to women is far higher in the open country than 
in villages. Moreover, in the matter of age-distribution the two 
population groups are quite different. The villages not only have 
far larger numbers of old people but fewer children. 

The fundamental nature of the differences between village 
and open-country populations can be further demonstrated by 
working out for the two populations the relation which the chil- 
dren under ten bear to the married women between fifteen and 
forty-five years of age. This ratio, which amounts to a sort of 
birth-rate, is decidedly higher among open-country people than 
among village people, as is clearly shown in Diagram VI. 


REGION 
0 100 200 


MIDOLE ATLANTIC 








MIDDLE WEST 


SOUTH 





FAR WEST 





GBB vinvace 


("~] OPEN COUNTRY 


DIAGRAM VI 


Number of Children Under 10 Years of 
Age to Each 100 Married Women I5 
to 45 Years of Age in Villages 
and Open Country, by 
Regions, 1920 
Such decided variations point to the possibility that there 
are basic differences between village and open-country dwellers. 
This general position is confirmed by a far more detailed com- 
parison of village and open-country data, which was worked out 
by Mr. Luther S. Cressman on the basis of the Institute’s special 
village tabulation. His analysis, which was accepted as his 


104 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Doctor’s dissertation at Columbia University, will be found in 
Appendix C. The conclusion reached by Mr. Cressman is that 
there are “wide differences between the village and the open- 
country populations in nativity grouping, sex, and age-distri- 
bution, marital condition, illiteracy and occupational status.” 

So decided, indeed, are the variations discovered by Mr. 
Cressman that he came to feel that his work conclusively showed 
“that the population classified under the category ‘rural’ con- 
sists of two separate elements, the village and the open country, 
which vary from division to division but always consist of two 
distinct elements.” 

This generalization is important because it raises the ques- 
tion whether the term “rural” has much significance since it 
combines two distinct population groups. The evidence thus far 
submitted is not adequate to answer this point. True, it has 
been shown that village and open-country populations differ from 
each other; but this fact by itself does not invalidate the present 
custom of classifying both groups under the one head “rural.” 
Any term which is as broad as the concept “rural” will neces- 
sarily include within it somewhat diverse population groups. 
The real issue involved is whether differences between village 
and open country are so fundamental that figures that combine 
both groups are misleading. 


ARE VILLAGES MORE URBAN THAN RURAL? 


In dealing with this problem it was decided to compare re- 
gional averages for the populations of the 177 villages with 
similar data for the thirty-eight medium-size cities and for the 
estimated open-country populations, in order to find out whether 
the village averages differed more from those of the city than 
from those of the open country. By this method it is possible 
to determine whether the composition and characteristics of vil- 
lage inhabitants differ as much from those of the open-country 
folk as from those of city dwellers. 

Before making this comparison, it is significant to recall the 
evidence presented in Chapter III regarding the growth ten- 
dencies of the three population groups. It will be remembered 
that the populations of the places that were incorporated villages 
in 1900 grew 51.3 per cent. between 1900 and 1920; while 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 105 


during the same twenty-year period the rest of the rural popu- 
lation grew only 19.5 per cent. Places that were cities in 1900 
expanded their populations during the next twenty years by 
66.4 per cent. Thus it becomes apparent that the rate of growth 
in villages has more nearly approximated the rate of growth in 
cities than in open-country areas. 


TABLE XL—DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) MEDIUM- 
SIZE CITY, AND (C) OPEN-COUNTRY POPULATIONS ON 
SPECIFIED POINTS, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Open Point Dif- 
Villages Cities Country ferences Between 
Item (a) (b) (c) a@wb-«a&ec 
Population : 
Native white 
Miagle wtlantic 1 he ees: 94.9 84.8 81.1 10.1 13.8 
WIOIeL IVY CSC LES heidi oe 88.9 87.2 90.2 1.7 1.3 
PUCMIET Ne iy Salmi sss tucd oe th ee! 69.6 69.9 2.1 1.8 
RENT SV VERE aoa teehee cc es's 88.1 78.5 i bps 9.6 10.9 
Illiterates 10 years and over: 
Native white 
Middle Atlantic ........... 0.5 0.6 1.6 0.1 1.1 
Aaa eNtyy CSE le. ss an de ae awe 0.8 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.6 
TET Oech ta eg a a BE 2.2 2.4 765 0.2 5.3 
WCAEMUY OEE Min oP LI ache eck a corte’s 0.4 0.2 Fan 0.2 1.9 
Tenure of homes: 
Rented 
Middle Atlantic Jace. 3s se 39.3 58.0 41.2 18.7 1.9 
DUO VV ESE! Coos. ued oie Je 50.1 AAW 17.9 6 
UIE clu te ee Oe sa 47.3 63.0 54.6 Tou 7.3 
WPALPINVOGUtS oe beok Meiplein eee 43.6 52.4 36.4 8.8 7.2 
Ratio of males to females 
Middie Atlantic, soins sce 88.0 96.4 118.1 8.4 30.1 
PA IGIEOVVESE nies fe eke ¢ 95.1 99.3 115.0 4.2 19.9 
ETD le a a ae 94.3 93.6 107.0 0.7 12.7 
DAV OORE lth eels © oy kis 105.2 107.7 134.6 2.5 29.4 


Table XL presents comparable population data for villages, 
for medium-size cities and for open country on four important 
points, and shows to what extent village figures differ on the 
one hand from city figures and on the other from those of the 
open country. 

The figures show that while villages are less like the cities 
than like the open country in the matter of home ownership, 
they are as much like the cities as like the open country in their 
relative number of native whites, and more like the cities in 
both illiteracy among the native whites and the ratio of males 
to females, 


106 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XLI—DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) MEDIUM- 
SIZE CITY, AND (C) OPEN-COUNTRY POPULATIONS IN 
AGE-DISTRIBUTION, BY SEX AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Age-Group and Villages 
Region (a) 
Under 10 
Middle Atlantic ............ 16.3 
Midler West) ch wis ices 05 18.2 
SOUTH e tae see ee ee ails 22.3 
FACMWeSsTR tee hk tk hae 19.1 
10 to 20 
Mice Atlante wi) eck vies ce 15.4 
IIIGUION. VV ESE Ga Voie tice eed be 17.5 
UTILS Mae ce we Lehr nar 19.8 
STae yy CSE Preiss ve hoe nok o 16.6 
20 to 45 
Mindiex Atlantic joc 6 cet 33.4 
Middle “West) i ieee et 32.9 
SOUT Ware Cr tae oe ee eee 36.5 
Are RVVESE Hite eRe cy ees 36.8 
45 to 65 
MiddievAtlanticie J. ee 23.8 
Middle Westra ico Uae ie 21.4 
SOUtH ST. ate we ales eae tee 16.3 
Mate VV EST vase ae ca cioe ye eee 20.2 
65 and over 
Middle Atlantie 0 l.se i 11.0 
Mid@le Westin varee es sens 9.7 
Sotth fo ees GM eae ee ne 4.7 
Hare Westny cnt cae eae riA\ 
Under 10 
Middte Atlantic. ieee. 2ck 14.2 
Middle Wests ye eae 17.0 
SOUTHS ay Pe Neen ee, ee ee a 20.5 
PareVV ests awe hue beeen 19.7 
10 to 20 
Middlei Atlantic Wy) Ja, 15.2 
WMiyddle SW ests ject be ie, 18.2 
SSCHIti ak vee LAI eb ene ben ae 21.0 
APRN ESE eh cee na ae ta 8 18.8 
20 to 45 
Middle Atlantic ........ Sites beats 
Middley Westii ss vehi shi, i OR 
OUR ee ils Rite a Riclec a ear ee 38.8 
POT TU WESES filo cs hia hole 37.6 
45 to 65 
NidaletAtiantie gS si ecg 24.4 
Middle. VWVest. 75... e078 os Bite 20.2 
Se SELB 1 gas Ie eae OR rene BML Poe S23 aa ae 14.4 
ar AV CST betes cle Cie cl Jee De 17.5 
65 and over 
Middle “Atlantio cite. eo eae. 12.3 
Midtie Weésth 200) Fake oe 9.2 
SOO ies Side fr Sy Se ee ie 5.0 
Mar WVestieid ice Ponca tee 6.3 


Per Cent. 
Open Point Dif- 
Cittes Country ferences Between 
(b) (c) a&b a&e 
Males 
18.3 24.7 2.0 8.4 
17:5 25.0 0.7 5.1 
18.9 CHE 3.4 5.4 
16.1 21.8 3.0 ad 
15.9 20.0 0.5 4.6 
15 20.6 2.0 3.1 
Vis. 24.1 2.1 4.3 
14.6 17.3 2.0 0.7 
41.4 34.8 8.0 1.4 
42.9 34.5 10.0 1.6 
43.2 30.7 6.7 5.8 
42.5 39.2 5.7 2.4 
19.2 16.2 4.6 7.6 
18.8 16.5 2.6 4.9 
16.4 13.5 0.1 2.8 
21.1 17.5 0.9 2.7 
5.1 41 5.9 6.9 
5.1 5.1 4.6 4.6 
3.5 4.0 LZ 0.7 
4.8 3.9 ond Fi 
Females 
17.7 28.8 35 14.6 
17.1 25.9 0.1 8.9 
17.8 28.9 eh 8.4 
16.9 28.4 28 8.7 
16.0 21.0 0.8 5.8 
16.8 21.4 1.4 32 
18.7 24.5 2x3 3.5 
16.8 20.3 2.0 1.5 
41.1 34.6 7.3 0.8 
43.0 34.2 7.8 1.0 
44.9 325 6.1 6.3 
43.2 36.5 5.6 1.1 
18.9 12.7 5:5 Liss 
17.6 14.2 2.6 6.0 
14.5 10.7 0.1 3.7 
18.1 12.4 0.6 5.1 
6.2 2.9 6.1 9.4 
5.4 4.3 3.8 4.9 
3.9 Deck 1.1 LZ 
4.8 2.4 Lo I), 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 107 


Turning now to the age-distribution of the three popula- 
tions, data on this point are presented in Table XLI. The 
figures show that, except for the fact that cities have relatively 
large numbers of men and women in the age-period twenty to 
forty-five, the age-distribution of village populations is, in at 
least three of the four regions, more like that found in the 
cities than that in the open country. 

Table XLII shows the number of children under ten years 
of age to each 100 married women of childbearing age (fifteen 
to forty-five). This ratio indicates that the birth-rate in villages 
is more like the birth-rate in cities than like that in the open 
country. This table has unusual significance because it shows 
how much more, proportionately, this nation recruits its rising 
generation from the country than from the city. 


TABLE XLII—DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) 
MEDIUM-SIZE CITY AND (C) OPEN-COUNTRY POPULA- 
TIONS IN THE RATIO OF CHILDREN UNDER 10 TO EACH 
100 MARRIED WOMEN 15 TO 45 YEARS OF AGE, BY 
REGIONS, 1920 


No. of Children to Each 
100 Married Women 


Open Point Dif- 

Villages Cities Country ferences Between 

Region (a) (b) (c) 6&0 (a Ge 
PACE PAL LIANIIC Vole, cece ¢ alee a 30 120.8 122.7 205.0 1.9 84.2 
PPI MV ESE stucco sales cen 142.9 114.4 184.4 28.5 41.5 
oF SOR TS ER alee aN 146.5 110.6090 207,0 35.9 60.5 
BORTUBVV ESE Te alccccs tees Wieiesie ss es 135.0 107.9 177.4 Lik 42.4 


As an occupational classification of the gainfully employed 
inhabitants of rural areas is not available, a statistical compart- 
son of the occupational distribution of city, village and open- 
country populations is unfortunately out of the question. Never- 
theless, it is almost certain that such a comparison would again 
show that villagers are more like city dwellers than are the in- 
habitants of the open country. The data presented in Table 
XXXV have already revealed that so far as the occupational 
classifications of their inhabitants are concerned, villages and 
medium-size cities are much alike. It is a matter of common 
knowledge that the great majority of the gainfully employed 
workers in the open country are farmers or farm laborers. 
Thus it follows that without doubt the occupational distribution 
of villagers is more like the occupational distribution of people 
in cities than of people in the open country. 


108 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


There is doubtless another occupational factor of a non- 
statistical sort which differentiates the village from the open 
country more than it differentiates the village from the city. 
So far as foodstuffs are concerned, the open country is the pro- 
ducer and the village and city populations are the consumers. 
This leads to a conflict of interest. The farmer is naturally 
anxious to secure the highest possible prices for his products while 
the village dwellers and the city dwellers, both as middlemen 
and as consumers, are interested in buying foodstuffs at the 
lowest possible price. ‘This conflict is accentuated by the fact 
that business men in villages and in cities will often make money 
out of foodstuffs when the farmer himself does not. If food 
products are selling at low prices, the farmer cannot be pros- 
perous; but the manufacturer and the middleman can make 
money out of agricultural products provided only there is an 
advantageous price differential operating in their favor. 

On the whole, therefore, this analysis not only confirms Mr. 
Cressman’s conclusion that on a number of important points “the 
category ‘rural’ consists of two separate elements, the village 
and the open country,” but, in addition, it tends to demonstrate 
that as between village and open country the differences are of 
a fundamental character. Certainly in many respects they are 
at least as great as the differences between villages and medium- 
size cities, 

Of course, it can be argued that the composition and char- 
acteristics of village populations would not differ from the urban 
population as a whole to anything like the extent that they dif- 
fer from the thirty-eight medium-size cities. In order to as- 
certain whether this is true, it was decided to contrast regional 
differences between the villages and the total urban population 
with similar differences between the villages and the open- 
country population. The computation which is given in Tables 
XLII and XLIV, again reveals that on the whole, the dif- 
ferences between village and open country are more striking 
than the differences between village and city. In addition, the 
proportion of children under ten to married women of child- 
bearing age again shows (see Table XLII) that this ratio in the 
village is more like that for the city than like that for the open 
country. 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 109 


TABLE XLIII—DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) URBAN 
AND (C) OPEN-COUNTRY POPULATIONS ON SPECIFIED 
POINTS, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Total Open Point Dif- 
Villages Urban Country ferences Between 
Item (a) (b) (c) aeweba&e 
Population: 
Native white 
Biidadie Atlantic, 224025 03% 94.9 71.4 81.1 235 13.8 
mitgole wW est!) )s (renee eet 88.9 78.7 90.2 10.2 1.3 
PNT et ae wily DBA Laan aioe 71.7 70.4 69.9 1.3 1.8 
CRE VONV GRE rs ccd cy oe eee cart 88.1 78.5 ie 9.6 10.9 
Illiterates, 10 years and over: 
Native white 
Middle Atlantic® cc... so. ee. 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.1 1.1 
BCC Ol Vi OS thts aft as) gia bes ates 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.2 0.6 
(7 En ee Rel a a Aaa a a a 2.2 1.7 7.5 0.5 aa 
PEARY MST ef en ek Wd os 0.4 0.4 ZS 0.0 1.9 
Tenure of homes: 
Rented 
Miele Atlantic ii a.s cess 39.3 69.1 41.2 29.8 1.9 
LICIO BW GSE Cs Re ease 32:2 54.7 Sac7 Ze5 oe 
en ne ete os eas, ciate a8 47.3 61.9 54.6 14.6 7.3 
DIatEVY ESE Te oso ce she aks ale & 43.6 56.4 36.4 12.8 wiz 
Ratio of males to females 
Miisclevtiantic oye i5 ok 88.0 99.7 118.1 11.7 30.1 
Diidelem Westhiks fod doses 95.1 102.7 115.0 7.6 19.9 
SEMI ates ok es eee ak 94.3 96.8 107.0 20 MAF 
SATIN V ESE cll allec cot tet ts 105.2 105.9 134.6 0.7 29.4 
Ratio of children under 10 to 
married women 15 to 45 years 
of age: 
Middle Atlantic ...2......; 120.8 139.3 205.0 18.5 84.2 
BPPOIGUNY Sti -s ova cece ccs os 142.9 123.5 184.4 19.4 41.5 
OUI DB EA ra wai Se 146.5 115.3 207.0 3h2 60.5 
ACV ESE cee ore ces © ecole 3 135.0 106.6 177.4 28.4 42.4 


The data disclosed by this investigation seem to support 
the general position, which is rapidly gaining ground among 
rural sociologists, that the village and the open country differ 
so widely from each other that the village should constitute a 
separate category. Mr. Stuart A. Rice, writing in the Journal 
of the American Statistical Association for March, 1924, states: 
“We appear to need new categories which will permit of easy 
segregation and comparison of the three important types asso- 
ciated with the numerical concentration of population, namely, 
the urban dweller, the villager and the true countryman.’ The 


110 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XLIV—DIFFERENCES AMONG (A) VILLAGE, (B) URBAN, 
AND (C) OPEN-COUNTRY POPULATIONS IN AGE-DIS- 
TRIBUTION, BY SEX AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Total Open Point Dif- 
Villages Urban Country ferences Between 
Age-Group and Region (a) (b) (c) a.&.0' da Gee 
Under 10 Males 
Middle sAthantic ik oe ao. 16.3 20.3 24.7 4.0 8.4 
Middleo West so 00y erin wo 18.2 18.6 23.3 0.4 5.1 
SOUL Rs Cre ces tee eo cs 22.3 18.9 27.7 3.4 5.4 
Bary INV BSED tet. ston sad tas 8 ash 19.1 15.9 21.8 oe 27 
10 to 20 
Middle Atlantic ............. 15.4 16.7 20.0 1 ies 4.6 
NEGEV ESED Cle nc be eee 17.5 15:7 20.6 1.8 is Be 
rey eh Ey fon ee Ra fry et Caer, Pa 19.8 17.8 24.1 2.0 4.3 
Tar RV ESE te ele ene he ctle 16.6 14.4 17.3 ie 0.7 
20 to 45 
Middle Atlantic i. 04 ca% iu... 33.4 42.3 34.8 8.9 1.4 
WIG lee VWVESTO cists se om on nae 32.9 43.7 34.5 10.8 1.6 
SHI PE te Oe Te ree ee 36.5 43.3 30.7 6.8 5.8 
HACeVVESt foes ea oe etwiale so 36.8 43.8 39.2 7.0 2.4. 
45 to 65 
nviiddieA flantie ees res ean 23.8 17.1 16.2 6.7 7.6 
Middle AWest¥, aw oboe sslewe 21.4 17.5 16.5 3.9 4.9 
SOUND AL EEAG soc uLeees ote 16.3 16.1 135 0.2 2.8 
ate VV O6tah nis cto cE tes sre 20.2 20.3 1735 0.1 2.7 
65 and over 
Middle Atlantic lebih ek 11.0 35 41 73 6.9 
Widdie «Vesti ore. Aa eo eee 9.7 4.2 5.1 55 4.6 
SONU eke se ve ree ee ore 4.7 a5 4.0 12 0.7 
Fare ct ecn tin ee eee ee 7a 5.0 3.9 se | K 
Under 10 Females 
Middle WA tlatticow, «vey ae. 14.2 19.9 28.8 57 14.6 
Middle) West F008 bie ak ee 17.0 18.8 25.9 1.8 8.9 
Ponth iiss ces ae Ie hay 20.5 18.3 28.9 22 8.4 
Para Vestietn sic, oe ees 19.7 16.6 28.4 3.1 8.7 
10 to 20 
Middle Atlantic 4s 420 fbsck 15.2 iV hy. 21.0 2.0 5.8 
Middtes Wests. ..\, on pate ue 18.2 16.9 21.4 1.3 ee 
SOUR Se) eee Meee Ua eee 21.0 19.0 24.5 2.0 3.5 
Paroiwest. on. wadcns sec eee 18.8 15.9 3 2.9 ae 
20 to 45 
Middle Atlantic. Je 2240 720k 33.8 42.0 34.6 8.2 0.8 
Midgley WIESE | d0CchU Mem, 35.2 42.8 34.2 7.6 1.0 
DOT retest lee re eee oe 38.8 44.1 32.5 5.3 6.3 
ParvtavVestuc unite eee 37.6 43.8 36.5 6.2 1.1 
45 to 65 
Mingle Atiantion cc (306 24.4 16.4 127 8.0 11.7 
DULCE VVCSE aoe ony Ve ates 20.2 16.6 14.2 3.6 6.0 
SOUT th reas tat oe ec Leer 14.4 14.4 10.7 0.0 BO 
Bari i West ia. sh. scents seat 17,9 18.4 12.4 0.9 5.1 
65 and over 
Middle Atlantic ..........:.. 12.3 4.3 2.9 8.0 9.4 
Middle* West) (seers eo: 9.2 4.8 4.3 4.4 49 
SSOLILEL Ae th sie i otent ac cee 5.0 4.0 33 1.0 ia 
Toate cw eat he Cee yaar ox 6.3 52 2.4 1 3.9 


PECULIARITIES OF VILLAGE POPULATIONS 111 


basis for Mr. Rice’s statement is an analysis of recent election 
returns in Wisconsin and Minnesota which shows that in both 
these states the farmers voted “radical’’ while the ‘small town 
voters were highly conservative.” Clearly the available evidence 
indicates that the differences between village and open-country 
dwellers are of a fundamental character. 


Cuapter VII 
WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 


This discussion, having dealt with the available data about 
the number of people living in villages and with the composi- 
tion of the populations of agricultural villages, will now deal 
with some of the many functions that agricultural villages per- 
form. 

It cannot be concerned with all of these functions, because 
it is almost entirely confined to the use of Census data, which 
fail to throw light upon some of the services rendered by vil- 
lages. Moreover, certain functions, such as the manufacturing 
activities of villages and the extent to which they supply labor 
for the farms, have already been considered. Therefore, the 
present chapter will be confined to an analysis of village data 
about teachers, clergymen, lawyers, doctors and trained nurses; 
and the purpose will be to ascertain the adequacy of the services 
as indicated by the number of persons engaged in the service. 
In other words, this discussion will try to show how adequately 
agricultural villages are equipped professionally to function in 
the fields of education, religion, law and health. 

The relative importance of the different professional classes 
living in villages is presented in Table XLV," which shows that 
in each region the majority of village professional men are 
either teachers, clergymen, physicians or lawyers. Of the four, 
clergymen constitute the most numerous group. Among women, 
on the other hand, teaching is the most popular professional 
pursuit. On a regional basis, teachers constitute from 76 to 85 
per cent. of the professionally employed women in villages, while 
the male and female teachers combined comprise from 42 to 48 
per cent. of all the professional people in villages. 


1 The figures in Table XXXVI have already shown that villages as compared 
with these cities have relatively large numbers of gainfully employed men and 
much larger numbers of gainfully employed women engaged in professional 
pursuits. 

112 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 113 


In order to indicate the significance of the Census data for 
villages, Table XLV gives for comparative purposes similar 
data for the thirty-eight medium-size cities. The comparison 
is important because it serves to indicate how much less varied 
professional services are in villages than in cities. This is 
shown by the fact that villages have relatively low proportions 
of “other professional” pursuits; which term, used to designate 
all professional persons not otherwise listed in this table, in- 
cludes actors, architects, engineers, sculptors and others. In 
villages, this group is decidedly less numerous than in cities. 
The same situation prevails among the women, although to a less 
extent. 


TABLE XLV—DISTRIBUTION OF PROFESSIONAL CLASSES IN 
VILLAGES AND MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, BY SEX AND BY 
REGIONS, 1920 

Per Cent. 


Middle Atlantic Middle West South Far West 
34Vil- 10 65Vil- 10 44Vil- 10 34Vil- 8 
Professional Persons lages Cities lages Cities lages Cities lages Cities 


Males 

pa et a rt oe tes so, o « 18.1 10.5 Lge ieee 11.7 14.1 16.5 10.3 
Musicians and music 

RRR CLIOr Gi, ia ciel cecil: 1.8 ° 7.4 24S hey Le Ma apy thes 
MIDST | ies. cass a oe 3 20.9 10.2 19.6 10.0 24.2 16.6 16.4 8.3 
POR OVOR OT U1) c:25 410.4 ne oa e's 18 Ain 106 13.7) 113.4 22:6. 147 14.0 149 
eas | Ue hac koe os 16.6 12.4 16.2 14.1 gl ala? 16.4) 411.1 
eee e cee eek eas Vas Alt lle bea ree | TN ave RT pe | 
Veterinary surgeons .... 43 1.0 Swed by! Lo a8 ol 0.9 
rAINEd NUTSES Veins eb kn 0.2: 0.5 O51 "8.6 0.1 0.4 Os US 
Other professionals ..... 17.6 41.9 14.7 34.4 11.0 30.8 24.0 39.7 

Females 

GAC OL Far od Chak 6 cis cs pis peated ah dla MOE Os ak 85.4 59.9 75.9 57.4 
Musicians and music 

Pea OHETS Sh etn ce Shee te T2109 6.9 10.2 a, RR ad 7.1 10.4 
RSME OVITOTI Wee Ct as) atin ele 6 02 eid 0.6; 10:3 0.4 0.3 5 Be fen 8 Be 
ISAWVEtG T Pair clcese se cus 0.4 0.2 UG MR Nha Liar tO PPI Z 
PC RICANS a2), Yale taa'n ole asoce Viy430 D4 Sake O13 O05 08 1.4 
DPC IEL SOR Sioa Caen «2 bg t OZ. 0tG.0 OT 70.1 Ua pe hs: 
Veterinary surgeons .... .. ue a / a BS ; ‘3 
rained | ntirses: .\.5 sis: RAO G Lies 3.6° 23.4 8.3 20.6 
Other professionals ..... 44 7.1 S.Uiitave eA Pa ap PE eRe 


* Includes not only school-teachers but college presidents and professors and teachers 
of athletics, dancing, etc. 

+ Includes judges and justices. 

t Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


The fact that ‘other professionals” constitute a larger group 
in cities than in villages tends to explain many of the other vil- 
lage and urban differences revealed by Table XLV. For ex- 
ample, the only reason why, in the Middle West, the proportion 


114 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


of male lawyers is as high in villages as in cities, is that in this 
area the “other professional” group is more than twice as large 
in cities as in villages. The effect of this factor can be demon- 
strated by working out the distribution of the professional 
persons in villages and in cities when “other professionals” 
have been eliminated from both populations. Such a computa- 
tion is presented in Table XLVI and makes it clear that when 
the comparison is thus limited to identical occupations, the dis- 
tribution of the males of these professional classes is much the 
same in villages and cities. Among the males the only differ- 
ences consistent throughout all four regions are for clergymen 
and veterinary surgeons to be relatively numerous in villages and 
for the percentages of musicians and trained nurses to be com- 
paratively high in cities. Among the women, the chief dif- 
ferences between the two populations lie in the fact that villages 
have proportionately more teachers and fewer musicians and 
trained nurses than have the cities. 


TABLE XLVI—DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIED PROFESSIONAL 
CLASSES IN VILLAGES AND MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, BY 
SEX AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. 
Middle Atlantic Middle West South Far West 
34Vil- 10 65Vil- 10 44Vil- 10 34Vil- 8 
Professional Persons lages Cities lages Cities lages Cities lages Cities 


ales 

WLCACHETSis eit cae 22.0 18.1 20.3 18.6 13.1 20.3 Alikgabrat 
Musicians and music 

teaChEr Shee eae PENA 25a 9 0.8 5.9 2.0 12.0 
Clereymietiiis) nea cee 25.4 17.6 229 152 EM PORN EN 215 cise 
Lawyers ¥) "seek sc ees 16.0 18.2 16.0 20.4 Pape ph CARS 18.4 24.7 
Physictanismiics ci. 3s a 202 8203 19025 24.0 20.6 21.5 18.4 
Dentistsn ts. 2 howe tees « 8.8 9.4 10.9 10.8 rae Uy | 10.6 11.7 
Veterinary surgeons .... 5.2 1.7 7a ad Lares 41 1.6 
Trained nurses ......... 0.2°°.09 0.2 0.9 1 ead es 0.2 0.8 

Females 

Teachers. eer sees. 82.9 61.6 84.9 62.3 87.2 64.3 81.6 63.5 
Musicians and music 

teachers! | 4) iv a tlew ss 65 417 7 MGR Bit 8,.6.' 9.3 76° 114 
Cleroyiien .¢ cides ess 020741 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 awe 
LAWYErS Fe ils cee tists G4 00.2 0.1 0.3 adidas ee) 
PhVsICiANS HC Gy oer os ks Leu t G41 Ole 5 08 1.6 
Dentists Pir or tires. :S = 0.2 0.4 0.1 O01 OF 8S 
Veterinary surgeons .... .. r+ A “a a ny m i 
‘L Tamed ‘MUPrses vss << sss 5 & fw erat 6.4 24.3 3.6 25.2 9.0 22.7 


*Tncludes not only school-teachers but college presidents and professors and teachers 
of athletics, dancing, etc. 

t+ Includes judges and justices. 

t Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 115 


The next step will be to ascertain whether in proportion to 
the total population the villages have more or fewer representa- 
tives of each of these professional groups than have cities. 


TEACHERS 


Taking up first of all the teaching profession, the Census 
reveals that a total of 3,415 male and female teachers live in the 
177 villages. This is an average of nearly twenty teachers to 
the village. The variations from this average are very wide. At 
one extreme is a small village in the South that has only one 
resident teacher, while at the other end of the scale are two large 
villages in the Middle West with sixty-nine teachers. The middle 
half of the villages have from eleven to twenty-five teachers. 

The number of teachers naturally varies with the size of the 
village. All but eleven of the sixty-nine small villages have 
fewer than sixteen teachers each, while all but six of the thirty- 
seven large villages had more than sixteen to the village. 

Probably the best way to bring out the significance of these 
data about the number of teachers living in villages is to show 
what the figures mean in terms of the number of village pupils 
to each teacher. The Census facts show that the total number of 
village pupils from seven to twenty-one years of age attending 
school in the 177 villages is 42,454. Thus 3,415 teachers living 
in these villages means an average of one teacher to every twelve 
pupils. 

This proportion varies regionally. In the Middle Atlantic 
and Middle West villages there is a teacher to every eleven pupils, 
while in the South there is one teacher to every sixteen pupils. 
The Far West falls in between with thirteen. 

Compared with similar ratios in cities, all of these propor- 
tions are remarkably low. Data for the thirty-eight medium- 
size cities show that in the Far West there is one teacher to 
every sixteen pupils between seven and twenty-one years of 
age; in the Middle West, one to every seventeen; while in the 
South, the ratio is one to nineteen, and in the Middle Atlantic, 
one to twenty-three. In other words, the average number of 
pupils for each teacher is consistently higher in cities than in 
villages. 

How can the disproportionately large number of teachers 


116 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


in villages be explained? Undoubtedly, the most important 
factor is that the village teacher serves both village and open- 
country inhabitants. Of course, the same situation also pre- 
vails to a certain extent in cities. Some country boys attend 
city school; but proportionately the number is much smaller than 
the number of country boys who attend village schools. Un- 
fortunately, it is impossible to find out from Census data the 
exact number of open-country pupils that attend either village 
or city schools. It is possible, however, to secure this data for 
villages by drawing upon the Institute’s field studies. As a part 
of its total village study, the Institute sent trained investigators 
into 140 of the 177 villages included in its special Census tabula- 
tion. In three of the four regions, these field workers were able 
to ascertain for a large majority of all schools, parochial as well 
as public, the actual number of open-country pupils attending 
village schools. A tabulation of this information appears in 
Table XLVII, which makes it clear that from 19 per cent. to 32 
per cent. of the white grammar-school pupils in villages and 44 
per cent. of the Negro grammar-school children, come from 
the open country. Of village high-school pupils, the proportions 
from the open country are even higher, being 44 per cent. in 
the Middle West and South, and almost one-half in the Far 
West. Clearly, village schools serve the open country. 


TABLE XLVII—PROPORTION OF VILLAGE SCHOOL PUPILS * 
THAT LIVE IN THE OPEN COUNTRY, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Per Cent. from Open Country 
In I 


1 n 
Villages Grade High 
Region Reporting Schools Schools 
Macias W Ostug. tc eo ules sack gees 60 19.5 44.1 
South 
NY Bite Osi. es Bek ee ee oe 29 32.0 43.4 
INSEE Ess balm GAs aitiiee iene siege ae oad 15 44.1 + 
PPACAIVY CAT On odes Bois Sao ee ae eG 22 26.7 49.4 


* Includes pupils attending parochial schools as well as public school pupils. 
t Base less than 100. 


When both the village pupils and the open-country pupils 
taught in village schools are taken into account, the number of 
pupils to each teacher becomes 16 in the Middle West, 24 in 
the South and 21 in the Far West. In other words, if one 
corrects for the number of open-country pupils served by village 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 117 


schools, the number of pupils to the teacher is slightly higher in 
cities than in villages of the Middle West but higher in villages 
than in cities of the South and Far West. 

Closely allied with the teachers are the people who are gain- 
fully employed as musicians and music teachers. In the 177 
villages there are 320 professional persons of this kind. Fifty 
villages, however, have no gainfully employed persons who make 
their living through music, while the largest number in any one 
village is nine. 

Compared with the number of musicians and music teachers 
relative to the population in medium-size cities, the number in 
villages is small, varying from only twelve in the South to seven- 
teen in the Middle West to each 10,000 village inhabitants. In 
cities, on the other hand, these numbers vary from sixteen in the 
South to twenty-seven in the Far West. 


CLERGYMEN 


Taking up next the functions performed by villages in the 
field of organized religion, the Census facts show that there are 
776 clergymen living in the 177 villages, or an average of more 
than four to each village. The variations from the average are 
marked—one small far-western village has no ministers, while a 
large southern center has fifteen. 

The number of ministers living in villages varies from region 
to region and also with the size of the villages concerned. The 
number of clergymen for every ten villages averages thirty- 
five in the Far West, thirty-eight in the Middle Atlantic, forty- 
five in the Middle West, and fifty-four in the South. 

Large villages naturally have more ministers than small 
places. Only nineteen of the sixty-nine small villages have 
more than three resident clergymen each, while all but three of 
the thirty-seven large villages have more than this number. 

In relation to the total population, the proportionate number 
of ministers steadily decreases with the increasing size of the 
village. This can be demonstrated by working out the number 
of clergymen for each thousand inhabitants in villages of vary- 
ing size. Results are shown in Table XLVIII, which reveals 
that, on the average, the number of clergymen in villages is 


118 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


three or four to each thousand village men, women and children. 
In the small villages of each region, this proportion is decidedly 
higher than in the large ones, with medium-size villages falling 
in between. 

Even the relatively small number of ministers found in larger 
villages is, in proportion to the population, much greater than 
the number in cities. Data on this point are also included in 
Table XLVIII and make it plain that, on the whole, the rela- 
tive number of clergymen living in the villages of each region 
is, roughly, twice as large as in cities. 


TABLE XLVIII—CLERGYMEN TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULA- 
TION IN VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE AND IN MEDIUM- 
SIZE CITIES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Clergymen per Thousand 


In Villages In 
Region Total Small Medium Large Cities 
Middle ‘Atlantic. 34.00 S40... 3.4 3.9 3.5 2.1 1.2 
Wid len Wiest. ti. <a sc) cee ota 3.5 4.7 3.4 2.9 1.4 
POGUE es erie hoe hee a weston 4.2 5.4 4.3 3.6 2.4 
Par ew eth tree c te at cae coe ee 2.8 Je 2.9 Ba 1.4 


The very high proportion of ministers living in villages is 
again explained, at least, in part, by the fact that village min- 
isters serve not only village populations but those of the open- 
country. On this point, it is interesting to note that the Insti- 
tute, through its field investigations, secured information about 
the number of members of village churches that live in the open 
country. These data were obtained for 609 of the 648 white 
Protestant churches in the 140 villages surveyed, and for fifty- 
two of the fifty-seven Protestant Negro churches in the South. 
They show that 27,297 of the 76,515 members of the white 
Protestant churches in villages, 36 per cent., live in the open- 
country. The fifty-two Negro churches have 1,318 open-country 
members in a total membership of 4,008. In other words, one- 
third of the church-members that belong to village churches come 
from the open country. Even if one corrects for the open-country 
members that belong to village churches, the relative number of 
ministers in villages is still disproportionately high compared with 
the relative number in cities. 

The South, which has proportionately the largest number 
of ministers living in villages, has the lowest proportion—one- 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 119 


quarter—of open-country people as members of village churches ; 
while the Far West, which has, on the whole, the smallest num- 
ber of ministers, has the highest proportion—three-eighths—of 
its members living in the open country. In other words, the 
number of village ministers in proportion to the populations they 
serve is comparatively high in the South and low in the Far 
West. 


LAWYERS 


The extent of the legal services rendered by villages is indi- 
cated by the fact that 600 gainfully employed lawyers live in the 
177 villages. This is an average of ten lawyers to every three 
villages. Forty-one of the places studied have no lawyers, while 
one village has sixteen. 


TABLE XLIX—LAWYERS TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULATION 
IN VILLAGES AND IN MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, BY REGIONS, 


1920 
Lawyers per Thousand 
In Villages 
County Non-County In 
Region Seat Seat Cities 
MIE ATIANIC veces tc res deep ce reece 4.5 2.0 £53 
A ICAINV CGEM. bis ais Scheie cece fa cee ee 41 ye 1.9 
MAREE ae ak cies 4.4 che vince ¢ 901s CGN OTe Be 1.5 jay 
PAPE RSE OL a Solis swiss sili die a's 'S'e dle ths 4.5 1.4 2.4 


There is one outstanding consideration that helps to de- 
termine the number of lawyers .in a village—whether or not the 
place is a county-seat. Four hundred and three of the 600 
lawyers live in the fifty-six villages that are county-seats. Not 
one of the county-seats has fewer than three lawyers, while the 
number most frequently found is seven. Of the 121 villages that 
were not county seats 41 had no resident lawyers. 

The size of a village is also, of course, another factor that 
helps to determine the number of lawyers living there. Large vil- 
lages have more lawyers than small ones. 

The number of lawyers who live in villages having been 
shown, it is now possible to compare the proportions found in 
villages with similar ratios for cities. Such data are presented 
in Table XLIX, and reveal that in all regions except the Middle 
Atlantic, the number of lawyers in cities is high compared with 


120 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


the number in non-county seat villages; but that the number 
found in county-seat villages is in every region much higher 
than the proportions in cities. 

The large number of lawyers in villages is again explained 
by the fact that village lawyers serve open-country as well as vil- 
lage inhabitants. A county-seat village, by the very nature of 
the case, provides certain legal facilities for the entire county ; and 
even the non-county seat villages furnish virtually the only avail- 
able legal services for the open-country population round about 
them. ‘The field workers of the Institute who visited 140 villages 
found virtually no lawyers living in the open-country areas adja- 
cent to the villages. In other words, the open-country populations 
of the surrounding country-side naturally turn to villages when 
they need legal advice. Here, then, is another function which 
villages perform not only for their own inhabitants but for open- 
country people as well. 

Finally, with respect to the medical services performed by 
villages, the available Census data are unusually rich, since the 
Census enumerates separately the number of gainfully employed 
physicians, dentists, veterinary surgeons and trained nurses. 


PHYSICIANS 


The number of physicians to the village in the 177 villages 
varies from one to eleven, and the aggregate total is 676. Of 
course, the large villages have more physicians than the small 
centers have; but the increase does not keep pace with the growth 
of village populations, with the result that the proportionate 
number of doctors decreases as the villages become larger. This 
is demonstrated by Table L, which shows that in every region 
the number of physicians to each 1,000 villagers is appreciably 
higher in small villages than in large ones. 

Compared with the proportions found in medium-size cities, 
however, there are decidedly higher relative numbers of physi- 
cians in villages. This comparison, which is also presented as 
a part of Table L, shows that even the larger villages have more 
physicians to each 1,000 inhabitants than have cities. These 
figures do not mean, however, that villages have a larger num- 
ber of doctors in proportion to the population that they serve. 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 121 


It is a well-known fact that village physicians serve open-country 
inhabitants as well as villagers. The first-hand studies of the In- 
stitute’s field workers found that almost no doctors live in 
the open-country areas adjacent to villages. Open-country in- 
habitants are therefore compelled to turn to villages when they 
want medical attention. 


TABLE L—PHYSICIANS TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULATION IN 
VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE AND IN MEDIUM-SIZE 
CITIES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Physicians per Thousand 


In Villages In 
Region Total Small Medium Large Cities 
PIIMMIBOATANUIC? fos 6 ox) > 5 old 2.9 ai 2.9 23 1.6 
iMirdlie - Westic. ease es nase 2.8 te 2.9 2.6 Zi 
PARI ie oe fee aad cess 6 ae 3.6 Did 3.8 2.8 toa | 
PeaTERNY SENT) Gna etek sty ates ea 2.8 oe 2.8 Pay 2.0 


Through the field studies of the Institute it is possible to 
approximate the size of the open-country population served by 
village doctors, since in each one of the 140 villages visited by the 
field workers the total population of the different village com- 
munities was carefully estimated. By “village community” is 
meant “the population of that area in which a majority of the 
people have a majority of their social, economic and religious 
interests in common.” The results of these first-hand investi- 
gations, which are summarized in Table LI, make it clear that, 
with the exception of one size-group in one region, more people 
live in the open-country areas of village communities than in the 
villages themselves. 

The information in Table LI makes it possible to work out 
the number of doctors for each 1,000 inhabitants in the 177 
village communities. This procedure is justified because, as was 
mentioned before, virtually no doctors live in the open-country 
areas of village communities. 

This computation furnishes a basis for comparing the rela- 
tive number of physicians in village communities with the num- 
ber in medium-size cities; and in this way to come to some con- 
clusions about the adequacy of these services in the two popula- 
tion areas. It may be argued that this procedure is not war- 
ranted because city doctors undoubtedly serve certain patients that 
live outside the city limits, and therefore that it is not fair to com- 
pare the number of city doctors per 1,000 city inhabitants with 


122 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


the number of village doctors per 1,000 of the population living 
in the entire village community. In this connection, however, it 
should be borne in mind that a village community includes only 
“the population of that area in which a majority of the people 
have a majority of their social, economic and religious interests 
in common.” 

Thus the population of a village community as defined by 
the Institute will fail to include many open-country inhabitants 
that regularly turn to that village when they need the services 
of a physician. This factor should more than compensate for 
the out-of-town patients that were omitted when computing city 


TABLE LI~AVERAGE SIZE OF THE VILLAGE AND THE OPEN- 
COUNTRY POPULATIONS IN 140 VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, 
BY SIZE AND BY REGIONS, 1920 


Region 
Size of Middle Middle Far 
Village Atlantic West South West 
Weighted * total 
POA a Lites Os yer te che 2,559 2,963 4,273 2,891 
Willage yin satan Cae xh 1,088 1,301 1,303 1,230 
Cipenscounthys Mw ues 1,471 1,662 2,970 1,661 
Small 
TotalGuany ete, aetna es 2,050 1,765 3,054 1,793 
Viliatad ats ae so ca thie uo 763 733 603 664 
Open: CONN VN... teers 1,287 1,032 2,451 1,129 
Medium 
TDatalany Corea awe eae ek ae es 2,871 3,055 4,358 3,200 
Villages) condi ae erik eee 1,290 1,312 1,327 1,228 
Open country fii so bee es 1,581 1,743 3,031 1,972 
Large 
Totaling arwteae an wate ce 3,988 4,655 5,676 4,512 
Villa@eUni bie tin scentee wee 1,991 2,170 2,136 2,364 
Onenkcoutiry @ Goria. 1,997 2,485 3,540 2,148 


* Weighted according to size-distribution of the 177 villages. 


ratios. It is therefore very significant to find, as Table LII so 
clearly shows, that village communities, whether small or large, 
have far fewer doctors than have medium-size cities. Diagram 
VII presents these figures graphically, and reveals that in every 
region cities have from one-third more to nearly twice as many 
doctors as have village communities. These differences are all 
the more significant because the distance a village doctor must 
travel in visiting many of his rural patients makes it difficult 
for him to care for as many people as can a city doctor. 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 123 


TABLE LII—PHYSICIANS TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULATION 
IN VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND IN MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, 
BY REGIONS, 1920 


Physicians per Thousand 


In Village Communities In 
Region Total Small Medium Large Cities 
EEE ESTs a ed 1.2 1 Ey Lee js 1.6 
MIUIBE VV ESE US clas sec iv ries es ja 1.4 TZ LZ fa 
Lane ag y ie iy SG, SAP Anes gs 1.1 1.0 1.2 jt 2.1 
NOSE Beeb chiints vo Retina wer lehd ates Be 1.1 ts 1.4 2.0 
REGION 


MIDDLE ATLANTIC 


MIOOLE WEST 


SOUTH 


FAR WEST 





GMB citics 


(—] VILLAGE COMMUNITIES 


DracraMm VII 


Number of Physicians to Each 1,000 of 
the Population in Cities and in Village 
Communities, by Regions, 1920 


DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND TRAINED NURSES 


Turning now to the dental services performed by villages, the 
Census facts show that there are 313 dentists in the 177 villages, 
an average of less than two dentists to the village. T'wenty- 
three villages have no dentists, while one large village in the 
Far West has as many as six. Sixty-three villages have one 
dentist, and forty-three have two. Most of the small villages 
have but one dentist, while all but two of the thirty-seven large 
villages have two or more each. 

In proportion to the number of dentists found in medium- 
size cities, the number found in the villages themselves is rela- 
tively large. If, however, the open-country populations served 
by village dentists are again taken into consideration, village 


i24 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 
communities have fewer dentists than have cities. These ratios 
are presented in Table LIII. 

Of course, it can be argued that the poor showing made by 
village communities is explained by the inclusion in the analysis 
of the twenty-three villages that have no dentists, 


TABLE LIII—DENTISTS TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULATION IN 
(A) VILLAGES, (B) VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND (C) 
MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Dentists per Thousand 


In Village In 

In Villages Communities Cities 
Region a b c) 
While Atiantee. oe Ne a Caan ae | Res 0.5 0.7 
Middlen gy Gating vaste tees Neti wed ieee 1.6 0.7 1.0 
MOULIT Ne Petvulels Wace ae cme wee eke 1.2 0.4 0.6 
PAPWVV estore cys Mae ama ania 1.4 0.6 1.2 


If, however, those villages that have one or more dentists 
are considered as a separate group, the number to each 1,000 
inhabitants in village communities becomes 0.6, in the Middle 
Atlantic region, while remaining virtually unchanged in the other 
three areas. So far, therefore, as the present sample is con- 
cerned, the conclusion is warranted that one-eighth of the village 
communities have no dentists at all, and that the remaining places 
have appreciably fewer dentists than have cities in proportion 
to the population that they serve. 

Since the 177 villages included in this study are somewhat 
larger than the average, and since the smaller villages are the 
ones that, on the whole, have no dentists, it seems safe to con- 
clude that the findings of this study tend to overestimate rather 
than to underestimate the dental services performed by all vil- 
lages. Unless village teeth are of better quality than are town 
teeth, they are less adequately cared for. 

Data regarding veterinary surgeons in villages show that 
while there are 157 of these doctors in the 177 villages, neverthe- 
less there are seventy-five villages that have none. The numbers 
vary regionally. Only twelve of the forty-four villages in the 
South have a doctor of this sort, while all but twelve of the sixty- 
five far-western villages have one or more veterinaries. Even 
these numbers, however, are proportionately higher than the 
numbers found in cities. 


WHAT FUNCTIONS DO VILLAGERS PERFORM? 125 
Coming finally to the facts about trained nurses, the Census 
data show the total number in the 177 villages to be 221. But 
eighty-seven villages have no such nurses, while forty-two have 
but one and twenty-six but two. The remaining 127 nurses are, 
therefore, distributed among only twenty-two villages. In the 
main, these are places with public and private hospitals or with 
health resorts. In other words, half of the villages analyzed have 
no nurses, while one-eighth of the villages have half the nurses. 


TABLE LIV—NURSES TO EACH 1,000 OF THE POPULATION IN 
(A) VILLAGES, (B) VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND (C) 
MEDIUM-SIZE CITIES, BY REGIONS, 1920 


Nurses per Thousand 


In Village 
In Villages Communities In Cities 
Region (a) (b) (c) 
Pr teria PU TLATITIO LY « B,setercied Cee be cele Tet 0.5 2.4 
PUPMSIIEMEVVIENEOT Mey eee Ces iol ays 2 0.5 mg | 
koi a Cg etn dael ah rl A TAD asi ae a a 0.5 0.2 2.9 
OEE Te ae DS US aD IBD ream 1.3 0.6 32 


Compared with the numbers of nurses relative to the popula- 
tion in cities, the numbers found in villages are very small. Data 
on this point are given in Table LIV. Whether the number of 
nurses be considered in relation to the population of the villages 
themselves or in relation to the total population of the entire 
village community, the relative numbers are far smaller than 
those for cities. This is particularly true in the South. 


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN VILLAGES OF VARYING SIZE 


Each of the more important professional classes in villages 
having been analyzed separately, it is now possible to find out 
the combination of professional services rendered by villages 
of varying size. Information on this point is presented in Table 
LV, and makes it clear that the professional functions rendered 
by villages steadily expand with the increasing size of the village. 
Every one of the large villages has at least ten teachers, two 
clergymen, three physicians, one lawyer and one dentist, while 
the only professional persons found in every small village are 
one teacher and one physician. Three-quarters of all the large 
villages have not fewer than twenty-one teachers each, five 
clergymen, four physicians, four lawyers, two dentists, one mu- 


126 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


sician and one veterinary surgeon; while three-quarters of the 
small villages have only seven teachers, two clergymen and two 
physicians each. 


TABLE LV—MINIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE 
DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS IN VILLAGES OF VARYING 


SIZE, 1920 
Proportion of Villages Having Designated Number 
of Professional Persons 

Large Villages Medium Villages pita Villages 
Profession All .% % “% <All 5% 44% . All Ae 
CACHES Ai. Orutieey tae « beta Bt Ba ce) Ce Oe ey 1 ‘ 11 14 
CET SV METIUD. Ge os) ch ce ee Ze ed ee. | Wane te ye ib yh" fs 3°54 
PHysicianig yy. cs sis ces Ot eb O 1213? AGES 1 ; ES 
PEERS tee ne fitsteouiels s irae 8 Og Bie ss WP Te fe 8 ~~ ie AS 
DIGUMLIStE! HA car cies vite sees Des 83. et EAR AY fe eit 

Musicians and music 
teachers Vt SoC see a: Tees 65 1 Live 
Veterinary surgeons ... .. je! erie WS Leh mee ewe sat 
Prater: nurses Vt oe ei se thah of Pan Tere 1 


*“Tncludes not only school-teachers but college presidents and professors and teachers 
of athletics, dancing, etc. 
fT Includes judges and justices. 


The table indicates, therefore, the order in which the average 
village, as it increases in size, expands its professional functions. 
The only professional persons in very small villages are, with 
few exceptions, the teacher, the doctor and the clergymen. As 
the village grows larger, the lawyer and the dentist enter. Further 
increases in size bring the musician and the veterinary surgeon, 
while last of all comes the trained nurse. 


APPENDICES 








APPENDIX A 


ANALYSIS OF THE “RURAL” AND THE “URBAN” 
POPULATION FIGURES FOR CERTAIN NEW 
ENGLAND STATES AS GIVEN IN THE 1920 
GENSUS: 


Analysis seems to prove that, because of conditions peculiar to 
New England, the “rural” and the “urban” population figures for 
1920 as published by the United States Census Bureau for certain 
New England states, particularly for Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island, are not comparable with those for other states. 

The fact that these figures are not comparable was first indicated 
when a special count of the population, as of 1920, of the Massa- 
chusetts and Rhode Island villages listed in the Rand McNally 
Atlas, was compared with the total rural population given by the 
1920 Census. This comparison shows that the population of atlas 
villages actually exceeds the total rural population as given by the 
Census, even though the term “rural” is supposed to include not 
only the open-country population but the population of places having 
fewer than 2,500 inhabitants. 

In Massachusetts, for instance, the number of people reported 
by the atlas as living in villages is 256,303, while the total rural 
population as reported by the 1920 Census is only 202,108. In 
other words, the combined open-country and village population as 
given in the Census, is actually 54,195 less than the village popu- 
lation alone as furnished by the atlas. In Rhode Island, the sit- 
uation is even more surprising. There the village population given 
in the atlas is 72,805, or more than four and a half times as great 
as the state’s total rural population of 15,217, as given by the Census. 
This means that for the two states combined, the atlas total for 
villages alone is 111,783 greater than the entire rural population total 
given by the Census. 

Obviously, these figures reveal a serious discrepancy somewhere. 
Further analysis indicates that these differences arise out of the local 
form of government peculiar to those states. It is a matter of 
common knowledge that in parts of New England it is not the 

129 


130 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


custom for villages to incorporate as separate municipalities. In- 
stead the local government is organized on a township basis. These 
primary divisions of the county, which are there known as “towns,” 
usually cover an area of more than twenty-five square miles. In 
such cases the Census classified as urban the total population of 
each township or “town” having an aggregate population of 2,500 
or more. To illustrate, suppose a “town” has a total population of 
2,697. The entire population of this “town” would be therefore 
classified by the Census as urban, because it is “an incorporated 
place having 2,500 inhabitants or more.” In actual fact, however, 
the total population of the “town,” not including the hamlets and 
open-country areas, is probably distributed in one or two small 
centers, no one of which has 2,500 inhabitants. Populations 
grouped in this way in other parts of the country would be classed 
as rural instead of urban. That this general situation prevails in 
scores of “towns” is clearly indicated by the fact that out of the 
152 “towns” (townships) in Massachusetts and Rhode Island that 
are classed by the Census as entirely urban, fifty-four have popu- 
lations below 4,000. If one imagines 4,000 people scattered over 
an area of twenty-five square miles, the error involved in calling 
such an area “urban” becomes obvious. 
The Census itself, in commenting upon this situation, states: * 


_.. “those towns fie, townships] having 2,500 or more inhabitants 
in the three states named [Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New 
Hampshire] are treated as urban, although portions of their areas 
are rural in character. The urban areas in the three states in question, 
as classified by the census, thus contain a certain number of inhabitants 
who in other sections of the country would be segregated as rural. 
Nevertheless, in most of the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode 
Island towns having 2,500 inhabitants or more by far the greater part 
of the population resides within the more densely settled areas, so that 
the proportion classed as urban, considering each state as a whole, is 
not greatly exaggerated by the practice adopted.” 


The available information does not seem to bear out this conten- 
tion. The data indicate that at least in Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island the Census total decidedly exaggerates the urban populations 
and that it underestimates the rural populations very greatly indeed. 
This was demonstrated by subtracting from the total population of 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the aggregate population of the 
cities of 2,500 and over in each state. The actual figures used in 
this computation are as follows: 


1 Fourteenth Census, Vol. I, p. 43. 


APPENDIX A 131 


ESTIMATED RURAL POPULATIONS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND 
RHODE ISLAND, 1920 


Massachusetts Rhode Island 


(a) Total population of State, 1920 Census .... 3,852,356 604,397 
(b) Population of all cities listed separately in 

BUC GETISUR IAS id clita oy Sua pe nh: 2,741,599 429,175 
(c) Population of all towns (townships) havin 

more than 10,000 inhabitants, 1920 Census 402,478 72,187 
(d) Population of all centers with populations 

of 2,000 or more, listed in two atlases 

but not included under (b) or (c) ...... 36,700 17,626 
(e) Doubling of item (d) to care for possible 

DAMA eDOTtIC. IOeatinsEs Gh eas i oe ae 36,700 17,626 
PLO ELD CU et soe lee, ico. 3,217,477 536,614 
(g) Estimated rural population (a—f) ...... 634,879 67,783 
(h) Rural population given in 1920 Census .... 202,108 15,217 


This table indicates that the combined rural population of the 
two states should be 702,662, instead of 217,325 as given by the 
Census. 

Consider for a moment the reliability of these rural population 
figures. They were obtained by subtracting the urban population of 
the two states from their total populations. The total population 
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island was secured directly from the 
Census and is therefore an official figure. To a considerable extent 
the urban population of each state was also secured from Govern- 
ment sources. In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the Census 
publishes population data for all of the larger cities. Thus it was 
possible to get a Government figure for the urban population of 
thirty-eight Massachusetts cities and six Rhode Island cities. In 
every case this Census information was used in computing the total 
urban population for the two states. 

The only urban places for which official population figures were 
not available were those smaller cities whose populations were not 
listed separately by the Census. To get at the aggregate population 
of all these places of over 2,500 whose populations were not listed, 
it was decided first of all to consider as urban the entire population 
of every township in either Massachusetts or Rhode Island which 
had 10,000 or more inhabitants. This procedure, of course, tended 
to overestimate the populations that were actually urban in these 
towns. The average area of the “towns” in these states is over 
twenty-five square miles, so that parts of the towns with more than 
10,000 inhabitants are undoubtedly rural. Nevertheless, these rural 
areas were classified as urban. This procedure was adopted in order 
to be conservative in estimating the extent of the discrepancy made 
by the Census when classifying the populations of these states into 
urban and rural. 


132 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


In addition to classifying as urban the total population of all 
“towns” with 10,000 inhabitants or more, the total population of all 
the centers having 2,500 inhabitants or more but located in “towns” 
with less than 10,000 inhabitants were also included in the urban 
total. The number and size of such centers were secured from two 
atlases—Cram’s and Rand McNally’s. To avoid duplication, no 
atlas figure was included if the place was located in a “town” having 
more than 10,000 inhabitants, or if its population was available di- 
rectly from the Census. With these exceptions, every atlas city 
listed was included provided either atlas claimed that it had a popu- 
lation of 2,500 or more. The population of every one of the cities 
taken from the atlas was assumed to be the larger figure listed in 
either atlas. As a further precaution, the population of these atlas 
centers was doubled in order to allow for any possible non-reporting 
on the part of the atlases. On this basis, the aggregate urban popu- 
lation of the two states is 3,754,091. Subtracting this figure from 
that for the entire population of both states, the combined rural 
population of Massachusetts and Rhode Island becomes 702,662, 
which compares with 217,325 reported by the Census. 

There remains another body of evidence bearing upon the gen- 
eral conclusion that the Census figures for Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island underestimate the rural population of these states by hun- 
dreds of thousands. It is possible to compare the rural population 
of Massachusetts with that of New Jersey where population con- 
ditions are similar to those in Massachusetts, but where the local 
form of government is different. These two states are strikingly 
alike. Both are small, New Jersey having a total land area of ap- 
proximately 7,500 square miles and Massachusetts of 8,000. New 
Jersey has a total population of 3,155,900, compared with 3,852,356 
in Massachusetts. The former state has a farm population of 
143,708, compared with 118,554 in Massachusetts. Both states have 
about the same concentration of population. Mr. Rossiter, writing 
in his recent monograph, “Increase of Population in the United 
States, 1910-1920,” found that 78 per cent. of the population of 
each state lives within a ten-mile radius of cities of 100,000 and 
over. In view of these facts, it is significant that New Jersey’s 
total rural population is given as 680,964, while the total rural 
population of Massachusetts is listed as only 202,108. This dif- 
ference of 478,856 in the rural populations of these two states is 
the more surprising when it is borne in mind that Massachusetts 
has a larger land area than New Jersey. 

As a final check upon this part of the analysis, it was decided, 
for comparative purposes, to try to compute the rural population of 


APPENDIX A 133 


New Jersey on the same basis as that employed in Massachusetts. 
In other words, an effort was made to determine what the rural 
populations of New Jersey would be if all the people living in each 
township having 2,500 inhabitants or more were classified as urban. 
This computation was not easy because in New Jersey the Census 
does not compile the total population of each township separately. 
The only figures for New Jersey which the Government provides 
township by township are those giving the number of people living 
outside of the incorporated places. Of course the Census lists sepa- 
rately the population of each incorporated place, whether it be a 
city, a town, a village, or a borough; but since it does not give the 
location by townships of each incorporated place, it is difficult to 
determine the aggregate population of each New Jersey township. 
By use of official maps of New Jersey as well as of the State 
Industrial Directory, and by local inquiry, it has been possible to 
ascertain in what townships the majority of incorporated places 
are located. This furnishes a basis for an incomplete count of the 
number and population of the townships in New Jersey having 2,500 
inhabitants or more. Even this incomplete count, however, proves 
that the rural population of New Jersey, when computed by the 
practice adopted in Massachusetts, is far smaller than the figure 
given in the Census. Using Census figures exclusively, all that is 
necessary is to add to the known population of each New Jersey 
township found to have 2,500 inhabitants or more, the total popu- 
lation of all cities located outside of these townships. This com- 
putation shows that on this basis the total urban population would 
be 2,959,854, and means that the rural population would be only 
196,046, or 484,918 less than the figure given by the Census. This 
figure checks remarkably with the difference found in the Census 
between the rural populations of New Jersey and Massachusetts. 
Summarizing the results of this analysis of the rural population 
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the facts show that the village 
populations of the two states as listed in the Rand McNally Atlas 
total 329,108; while the total rural population as reported in the 
Census is only 217,325. Because of the discrepancy between the 
two figures, an effort was made to determine the rural populations 
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island by subtracting their estimated 
urban populations from their total populations. This computation 
indicates that the combined rural population of the two states is 
over 700,000, or three times the figure given by the Census. This 
estimate was then confirmed by comparing the rural population of 
Massachusetts with that of New Jersey, which has population con- 
ditions remarkably similar to those of Massachusetts but a different 


134 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


form of local government. This comparison shows that New 
Jersey’s total rural population, not obtained on the township basis, 
is 680,964, while the total rural population of Massachusetts, ob- 
tained on the township basis, is 202,108. This difference of 478,856 
is the more surprising when it is remembered that Massachusetts 
has a larger land area than New Jersey. As a final check it was 
decided to compute the rural population of New Jersey on the same 
basis as that employed in Massachusetts. On this basis, the rural 
population of New Jersey would be 196,046 instead of 680,964 as 
given by the Census. 

In the light of these facts it is conservative to conclude that the 
present Census figures for Rhode Island and Massachusetts under- 
estimate the rural populations of those states by 485,000. This 
means that the rural population figures of the Census decidedly 
minimize not only the relative importance of the rural population 
of both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, but of all New England. 
The aggregate rural population of this region is given by the Census 
as 1,535,836, so that even assuming that any discrepancies in New 
Hampshire are negligible, a difference of 485,000 in the rural popu- 
lations of Massachusetts and Rhode Island means that the rural 
population of New England should be about 30 per cent. greater 
than the total given by the Census. Obviously, if this analysis is 
correct, the rural population figures for New England as given in 
the 1920 Census are not comparable with those for other areas. 


APPENDIX B 


CLASSIFICATION OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED 
WORKERS ACCORDING TO THEIR “SOCIAL-ECO- 
NOMIC” STATUS 


(Based Upon the Classification Devised by Alba M. Edwards.) 


I. Proprietors, officials, and managers 


1. Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry 
Dairy farmers, farmers, and stock raisers 
Gardeners, florists, fruit growers, and nurserymen 
Apiarists 
Poultry raisers 
Managers, officials, owners, and proprietors of log and timber 
camps 


2. Extraction of minerals 
Operators, officials, and managers 


3. Manufacturing and mechanical industries 
Dressmakers and seamstresses (not in factory) 
Milliners and millinery dealers 
Managers and superintendents (manufacturing) 
Manufacturers and officials 


4. Transportation 
Captains, masters, mates, and pilots 
Garage keepers and managers 
Livery stable keepers and managers 
Proprietors and managers of transfer companies 
Conductors (steam railroad) 
Officials and superintendents of steam and street railroads 
Proprietors, officials, and managers (not otherwise specified) 


5. Trade 
Retail dealers 
Undertakers 
Wholesale dealers, importers, and exporters 
Bankers, brokers, and money lenders 
Insurance agents and officials 
Proprietors, officials and managers (not otherwise specified ) 
Real estate agents and officials 


6. Domestic and personal service 
Billiard room, dance hall, skating rink, etc., keepers 
Boarding and lodging house keepers 
Hotel keepers and managers 
Laundry owners, officials, and managers 
Restaurant, café, and Iunch room keepers 
Saloon keepers 
135 


136 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


II. Clerks 


1. Transportation 
Baggagemen and freight agents 
Ticket and station agents 
Agents (express companies ) 
Express messengers and railway mail clerks 
Mail carriers 
Telegraph messengers 
Telegraph operators 
Telephone operators 


2. Trade 
Clerks in stores 
Commercial travelers 
Foremen and floorwalkers in stores 
Inspectors, gaugers, and samplers 
Salesmen and saleswomen 


3. Clerical 
Agents, canvassers, and collectors 
Bookkeepers, cashiers, and accountants 
Clerks (except clerks in stores) 
Messenger, bundle, and office boys and girls 
Stenographers and typists 


III. Skilled Workers 


1, Manufacturing and mechanical industries 
Bakers 
Blacksmiths, forgemen, and hammermen 
Boiler makers 
Brick and stone masons 
Builders and building contractors 
Cabinetmakers 
Carpenters 
Compositors, linotypers, and typesetters 
Coopers 
Dyers 
Electricians 
Electrotypers, stereotypers, and lithographers 
Engineers (stationary), cranemen, hoistmen, etc. 
Engravers 
Filers, grinders, buffers, and polishers (metal) 
Foremen and overseers (manufacturing) 
Glass blowers 
Jewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths 
Loom fixers 
Machinists, millwrights, toolmakers, die setters and sinkers 
Mechanics (not otherwise specified) 
Millers (grain, flour, feed, etc.) 
Molders, founders, and casters (metal) 
Painters, glaziers, varnishers, enamelers, etc. 
Paper hangers 
Pattern and model makers 
Plasterers and cement finishers 
Plumbers and gas and steam fitters 
Pressmen and plate printers (printing) 


APPENDIX B 137 


Rollers and roll hands (metal) 
Roofers and slaters 
Sawyers 
Shoemakers and cobblers (not in factory) 
Skilled occupations (not otherwise specified) 
Annealers and temperers (metal) 
Piano and organ tuners 
Wood carvers 
Other skilled occupations 
Stone cutters 
Structural iron workers (building) 
Tailors and tailoresses 
Tinsmiths and coppersmiths 
Upholsterers 


2. Transportation 
Locomotive engineers 
Locomotive firemen 
Steam railroad inspectors 


IV. Semi-skilled Workers 


1. Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry 
Dairy farm, farm, garden, orchard, etc., foremen 
Fishermen and oystermen 
Foresters, forest rangers, and timber cruisers 
Lumbermen, raftsmen, and woodchoppers 
Foremen and overseers 
Inspectors, scalers, and surveyors 


2. Extraction of minerals 
Foremen and overseers 
Inspectors 


3. Manufacturing and mechanical industries 
Apprentices to dressmakers and milliners 
Apprentices to building and hand trades 
Apprentices, other 
Oilers of machinery 
Semi-skilled operatives (not otherwise specified ) 

Chemical and allied industries 
Cigar and tobacco factories 
Clay, glass, and stone industries 
Clothing industries 

Food industries 

Harness and saddle industries 
Iron and steel industries 

Other metal industries 

Lumber and furniture industries 
Paper and pulp mills 

Printing and publishing 

Shoe factories 

Tanneries 

Textile industries 

Other industries 


4. Transportation 
Boatmen, canal men, and lock keepers 


Sailors and deck hands 


138 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Carriage and hack drivers 

Chauffeurs 

Foremen of livery and transfer companies 
Railroad transportation (selected occupations ) 

Boiler washers and engine hostlers 

Brakemen 

Conductors (street railroad) 

Foremen and overseers (steam and street railroad ) 

Motormen (steam and street railroad) 

Switchmen and flagmen (steam and street railroad) 

Yardmen (steam railroad) 

Telegraph and telephone linemen 
Other transportation pursuits: 

Foremen and overseers (not otherwise specified ) 
Road and street building and repairing 
Telegraph and telephone 
Water transportation 
Other transportation 

Inspectors 
Street railroad 
Telegraph and telephone 
Other transportation 

Other occupations (semi-skilled) 


Sol rade 
Decorators, drapers, and window dressers 
Deliverymen 
Foremen (warehouses, stockyards, etc.) 
Other pursuits (semi-skilled) 


6. Professional service 
Semi-professional pursuits 
Attendants and helpers 


7. Domestic and personal service 
Barbers, hairdressers, and manicurists 
Housekeepers and stewards 
Laundry operatives 
Midwives and nurses (not trained) 
Bathhouse keepers and attendants 
Cemetery keepers 
Cleaners and renovators (clothing, etc.) 
Hunters, trappers and guides 
Umbrella menders and scissors grinders 
Other occupations 


V. Laborers 


1. Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry 
Dairy farm, farm, and stock farm laborers 
Garden, greenhouse, orchard, and nursery laborers 
Corn shellers, hay balers, grain threshers, etc. 
Ditchers (farm) 

Irrigators and ditch tenders 

Poultry yard laborers 

Other and not specified pursuits 

Lumbermen, raftsmen and woodchoppers 
Teamsters and haulers 

Other lumbermen, raftsmen, and woodchoppers 


APPENDIX B 139 


2. Extraction of minerals 
Coal mine operatives 
Copper mine operatives 
Gold and silver mine operatives 
Iron mine operatives 
Operatives in other and not specified mines 
Quarry operatives 
Oil, gas, and salt well operatives 


3. Manufacturing and mechanical industries 
Firemen (except locomotive and fire department) 
Furnacemen, smeltermen, heaters, ladlers and pourers, puddlers 
Laborers (not otherwise specified ) 
Building, general, and not specified laborers 
Chemical and allied industries 
Cigar and tobacco factories 
Clay, glass, and stone industries 
Clothing industries 
Food industries 
Harness and saddle industries 
Helpers in building and hand trades 
Iron and steel industries 
Other metal industries 
Lumber and furniture industries 
Paper and pulp mills 
Printing and publishing 
Shoe factories 
Tanneries 
Textile industries 
Other industries 


4. Transportation 
Longshoremen and stevedores 
Draymen, teamsters and expressmen 
Hostlers and stable hands 
Laborers (garage, road and street) 
Laborers 
Steam railroad 
Street railroad 
Laborers (not otherwise specified) 
Express companies 
Pipe-liners 
Telegraph and telephone 
Water transportation 
Other transportation 


5. Trade 
Laborers in coal and lumber yards, warehouses, etc. 
Laborers, porters, and helpers in stores 
Newsboys 


6. Public Service 
Laborers 


VI. Servants 


1. Domestic and personal service 
Bootblacks 
Charwomen and cleaners 


140 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Elevator tenders 

Janitors and sextons 

Laborers 

Launderers and lJaundresses (not in laundry) 
Porters (except in stores) 

Servants 

Waiters 

Bartenders 


VII-VIII. Public and Semi-Official Public Employees 


1. Public service 
Firemen (fire department) 
Guards, watchmen and doorkeepers 
Marshals, sheriffs, detectives, etc. 
Officials and inspectors (city and county) 
Officials and inspectors (state and U. S.) 
Policemen 7 
Soldiers, sailors and marines 
Other pursuits 


IX. Professional 


1. Professional service 
Clergymen 
College presidents and professors 
Teachers 
Musicians and teachers of music 
Lawyers, judges and justices 
Physicians and surgeons 
Dentists 
Trained nurses 
Veterinary surgeons 
Actors and showmen 
Architects 
Artists, sculptors, and teachers of art 
Authors, editors, and reporters 
Chemists, assayers, and metallurgists 
Designers, draftsmen, and inventors 
Osteopaths 
Photographers 
Technical engineers 
Other professional pursuits 





APPENDIX C 


THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE 
RURAL POPULATION OF THE 
UNITED STATES 


BY 
LUTHER SHEELEIGH CRESSMAN 





CONTENTS 


STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 
SOURCES OF THE DaTa . 
ADEQUACY OF THE DATA 
METHOD oF UTILIZING THE DATA 
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS . 
CONCLUSION 

SOURCE TABLES 


PAGE 


149 
150 
Lot 
157 
pou 
vhs, 
183 





TABLE 
NUMBER 


XIII 


XIV 


PApo ESS UNAS PENOLA. C 


RATIO OF VILLAGES STUDIED To ToTAL 
NUMBER OF INCORPORATED VILLAGES, 
1920 

TOTAL VILLAGE POLGAaew “1920 

INCREASE OF VILLAGE POPULATION, 1900- 
1920 

AVERAGE Borns tio8 OF ate: 1920 . 

EFFECT OF SIZE Upon AGE AND SEx DistTrI- 
BUTION OF VILLAGERS . 

EFFECT OF S1zZE Upon MariITau Genin 
OF VILLAGERS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 

EFFECT OF SIZE OF VILLAGES UPON THE 
PERCENTAGE OF WIDOWED FEMALES 65 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 

COMPARISON OF ALL VILLAGES AND OF 
MeEpDIUM-SIZE VILLAGES 

NATIVITY AND COLOR Gourosaes FOR ne 
LAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY . i 

Ratio oF Mates to 100 FEMALES BY ny 
TIVITY AND COLOR FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 
CouNTRY 

NUMBER OF Barret BY AERA: THE Dee 
CENTAGE OF CHILDREN AMONG THE 
NATIVE-BoRN WHITES IN THE OPEN 
CouNTRY EXxcrED THOSE IN THE VILLAGE 

NATIVE-BorN WuitTEeE PopuLaTIon 15-44 
YEARS OF AGE, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND 
OPEN COUNTRY 

NATIVE-Born WHITE BASTION 45. 64 
YEARS OF AGE, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND 
OPEN COUNTRY t 

NATIve-Born WHITE Barer nan 65 Naas 
oF AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE 


AND OPEN COUNTRY 
145 


152 
153 


3 
154 


ans 


156 


156 
ays 


160 


161 


162 


162 


163 


163 


146 


XV 


XVI 


XVII 


XVIII 


XIX 


XX 


XXI 


DOVE 


XXIII 


XXIV 


XXV 


XXVI 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


ForeEIGN-BorN WuuiteE PoputaTion 15 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY AGE AND 
SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 

Necro PoPpuLATION BY AGE AND SEX FOR 
VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 

SINGLE NATIVE-BorN WHITES 15 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND 
OPEN COUNTRY 

SINGLE FOREIGN-BORN Wintiee 15 Nee OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND 
OPEN COUNTRY 

SINGLE NeEGROES 15 Nee OF Wes AND 
Over, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 
COUNTRY 

Marriep NATIVE- Boe maak 15 vanes 
or AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE 
AND OPEN COUNTRY 

MarrIED FoREIGN-BoRN anes ‘15 Vewe 
or AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE 
AND OPEN COUNTRY : 

MarriEp NeGrores 15 YEARS OF ison AND 
Over, By SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 
CoUNTRY 

DIFFERENCES IN THE Pap nual Manes 
BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AND THE STAND- 
ARDIZED AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF VILLAGE 
AND Open-CountTRY PopuLaTions 15 
YEARS OF AGE AND OVER . 

Wipowep, 65 YEARS oF AGE AND Chan, BY 
NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX . ‘ 

ILLITERATES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY 
NATIVITY 


SOURCE TABLES 


AGE-DISTRIBUTION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND 
SEX OF THE RURAL PopuLaTION 45 YEARS 
or AGE AND OVER, Six Divisions, 1920 . 


164 


165 


167 


168 


169 


170 


170 


171 


173 
176 


177 


183 


XXVIT 


XXVIII 


XXIX 


XXX 


XXXI 


XXXIT 


XXXII 


XXXIV 


XXXV 


XXXVI 


XXXVI 


XXXVIII 


APPENDIX C 


MarRITAL CONDITION By AGE, NAatIVvITY, 
CoLor AND SEX OF THE RuRAL PoPpuLa- 
TION 45 YEARS OF AGE AND Over, SIx 
Divisions, 1920 : 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE ate Bone 
LATION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEx, 
MippLeE ATLANTIC Division, 1920 

MarITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE MALES BY 
10-YEAR AGE-PERIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, MippLte ATLANTIC Division, 1920 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE FEMALES 
BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIopDS, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, MippLeE ATLANTIC Division, 1920 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGE Popu- 
LATION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEx, 
SouTHERN Division, 1920 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE MALES BY 
10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, NATIVITY AND 
CoLor, SOUTHERN Division, 1920 . 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE FEMALES 
BY 10-YEAR AGE-PeERIops, NATIVITY AND 
CoLor, SOUTHERN Division, 1920 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGE PopPu- 
LATION BY NATIvITY, COLOR AND SEX, 
East Nortu CENTRAL Division, 1920 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE MALES BY 
10-YEAR AGE-PeERIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, East Nortu CENTRAL Division, 
1920 

MARITAL Gounrnon OF Tien faa Herne 
BY 10-YEaR AGE-Periops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, East NortH CENTRAL DIvISION, 
1920 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE ate Pons 
LATION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX, 
West Nortu CENTRAL Division, 1920 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE MALES BY 
10-YEAR AGE-PeERiIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, West NortH CENTRAL DIVISION, 
1920 


147 


183 


185 


186 


187 


187 


188 


189 


189 


190 


191 


Lot 


192 


148 
XXXIX 


XL 


ALI 


XLII 


XLII 


XLIV 


XLV 


XLVI 


XLVI 


XLVIII 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE FEMALES 
py 10-YEAR AGE-PErRIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, West NortH CENTRAL DIvIsION, 
1920 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE rpeaes pope 
LATION By NATIvITY, COLOR AND SEX, 
MountTAIN Division, 1920 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE MALES BY 
10-YEAR AGE-PeERIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, Mountain Diviston, 1920 . 

MARITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE FEMALES 
py 10-YEarR AGeE-Periops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, Mountain Division, 1920 

AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE VILLAGE Popu- 
LATION By NATIvity, CoLoR AND SEX, 
Paciric Division, 1920 

MarRITAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE Mace BY 
10-YeAR AGE-PERIops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, Paciric Division, 1920 

MaritaAL CONDITION OF VILLAGE FEMALES 
py 10-YEar AGE-Periops, NATIVITY AND 
Cotor, Paciric Division, 1920 . 

OccuPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE VIL- 
LAGE PoPULATION BY SEX, S1x DIVISIONS, 
1920 ‘ ; : f ; 2 

EstIMATED AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
Open-CouNnTRY PopuLATION BY NATIV- 
iry, CoLor AND SEx, Six Divisions, 1920 

EstimMATED MARITAL CONDITION OF THE 
OpEN-CountrY PoPpuULATION By 10-YEAR 
Acr-Periops, NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX, 
Six Divisions, 1920 


193 


193 


194 


195 


195 


196 


197 


197 


198 


199 


a i el ———<— 





APPENDIX C 


THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE RURAL POPU- 
LATION OF THE UNITED STATES 


Statement of the Problem 


The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether the population 
which the Census defines as “rural,” and which includes the resi- 
dents of small incorporated places as well as the population of all 
unincorporated areas, is homogeneous or whether the population of 
the village and that of the open-country are fundamentally different 
in composition and characteristics. 

That the problem of ascertaining the exact nature of the “rural” 
population is a vital one to-day, no one dealing with sociological 
data will doubt. The far-reaching effects of the industrial revolu- 
tion have made more distinct to-day than ever before the division 
of our population into dwellers in the country and city dwellers. 
Efforts to evaluate the relative effects of rural and of urban condi- 
tions upon American social development have not been satisfactory 
to any great extent so far as the rural influences are concerned, 
because of the lack of knowledge of the real nature of the rural 
population. If there are significant differences between the open- 
country and the village populations, then the research that treats 
the rural population as a homogeneous class cannot be accurate in 
its conclusions. An examination of the books on rural sociology 
shows that the writers are aware of the existence of these differences, 
but have no data with which to work.* 

The only method of study that will lead to a satisfactory knowl- 
edge of the nature of the village population and that of the open- 
country is the painstaking inductive examination of data for the 
characteristics to be compared. Such an analysis of the rural popu- 
lation is the purpose of this study. 

As defined by the Census, the term “urban” applies to the popu- 
lation of all incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more.” The 
residents of all unincorporated places, as well as those of all incor- 


1 See John M. Gillette, Rural Sociology (New York, 1922), pp. 460 and 485. 
2The few unincorporated places that have 2,500 inhabitants or more are not 
classified as “urban,’? because the Census does not separately enumerate unincorporated 


1 ' 
places 149 


150 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


porated places having fewer than 2,500 inhabitants, are included in 
the Census enumeration as “rural.” In other words, the Census 
Bureau combines under the term “rural,” the populations of (a) 
incorporated places having fewer than 2,500 inhabitants, and (b) 
the populations of all unincorporated areas. In most of the states 
outside of New England, incorporated places of fewer than 2,500 
inhabitants are, in the great majority of cases, villages; while most 
of the people living in unincorporated areas are inhabitants of the 
open country. 

The plan of this study is to segregate the “rural’’ population 
outside of New England into village and open-country classes, and 
then to analyze separately the two groups with respect to nativity 
and color composition, sex-distribution, age-distribution by sex, 
marital condition by 10-year. age-periods, sex, nativity and color, 
illiteracy by nativity and color, and general occupational character- 
istics by sex. The results of this segregation of the “rural” popula- 
tion into village and open-country classes will then be compared. 

Because the data were compiled from Census material, it was 
advisable to retain as far as possible the Census geographical 
divisions. Different divisions of the population could no doubt be 
made that would produce better results, depending upon the par- 
ticular type of data desired; but the solution of the entire problem 
was greatly facilitated by following the Census divisions, except in 
the case of the South. 

Since the purpose of the study was to search for differences, all 
combinations of data by divisions that might have eliminated differ- 
ences have been avoided. In only one instance was a combination 
made; the three Census divisions of the South having been combined 
into the “southern division.” There are objections to this procedure; 
but the differences eliminated are not likely to be so great as the 
chance of error that might have resulted from the use of the very 
small samples available if the geographical divisions of the Census 
had been retained. 

The discussion will take up in order the following points: the 
sources of the data, the adequacy of the data, the method of utilizing 
the data, the results of the analysis, and, finally, the conclusions to 
be drawn from the study. 


Sources of the Data 


The basic data used in this study are of two main types, those 
relating to total rural population and those relating to villages. All 
the rural data were secured from Vol. II of the Fourteenth Census, 
except for marital condition of those 45 years of age and over by 


> ie 


—— oO a ae Oe el; 


ee 


i i 


APPENDIX C 151 


10-year age-periods, which were secured by a special tabulation of 
information in the files of the Census Bureau, and which are now 
published for the first time. 

The material on villages was obtained from a special tabulation 
of 1920 Census data for 177 representative agricultural villages 
made for the Institute of Social and Religious Research from cards 
punched directly from the original Census sheets. Partial results of 
this tabulation have been published in A Census Analysis of Amer- 
ican Villages, by C. Luther Fry, of the Institute of Social and 
Religious Research, which volume contains the data on illiteracy 
and occupations used in this study. In addition, the author of the 
present study compiled tables showing for the first time the marital 
conditions by 10-year age-periods, and also showing the distribution 
of the population by age-periods different from those used in Dr. 
Fry’s book. This new material is presented in the source tables 
of this study. Since the marital condition by 10-year age-periods 
had to be secured by a hand-count of the cards punched from the 
original Census sheets, financial considerations and the lack of time 
necessitated the limitation of the sample for this study to 155 of the 
original 177 villages. 

This sample, classified in six geographical divisions, was used to 
represent the total village population in the respective divisions. 
In each case, the estimated total village population was then sub- 
tracted from the total rural population to secure that for the open 
country. The method used is later explained in detail. . 


Adequacy of the Data 


The village sample used in this study consists of 155 incor- 
porated agricultural villages representing all parts of the United 
States except New England.’ 

The term “village,” as defined by the Institute, includes all 
centers with populations ranging between 250 and 2,500. Not all 
the incorporated places in this study fell strictly within these limits, 
one village with 246 inhabitants and four with slightly more than 
2,500 having been included. Their inclusion in the sample is justified 
because these villages are so widely scattered and so few in number 
that their effect on the results is virtually negligible. 

This study was necessarily limited to agricultural villages because 
the original Institute sample was confined to villages of this type. 

3In Massachusetts and Rhode Island it is not the practice, as in practically all 
hilar states, to incorporate, as separate municipalities, the relatively densely populated 
portions of towns’ (which are the primary divisions of the counties) and no town as 


a whole is SEE ER a as a municipality until! it attains a po Poet greatly in excess 
of 2,500. ...” Fourteenth Census of the United States, Vol. II, p. 20. 


152 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


By agricultural village is meant one that is a service station to a 
farming community. The Institute limited its study to agricultural 
villages because they are the most numerous and the most permanent 
type, since they depend for their existence upon the cultivation of 
the soil rather than upon the extraction of minerals or the chance 
development of a particular area of the country. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that an agricultural village 
differs from the open country less than does, for example, a mining 
or an industrial village. If, therefore, it can be shown that there 
are significant differences in the composition and characteristics of 
open-country populations and those of agricultural villages, it follows 
that the differences between the open country and all villages will be 
even greater. This study will, therefore, tend to underemphasize 
rather than to overemphasize any differences that may exist between 
villages and the open country. 

This study was also limited to incorporated villages. Table I 
shows the number and proportion of the sample’s incorporated vil- 
lages in each division. The total number of incorporated villages 
was secured from the Fourteenth Census. 


TABLE I—RATIO OF VILLAGES STUDIED TO TOTAL NUMBER 
OF INCORPORATED VILLAGES, 1920 


Incorporated 
Total Villages 

Number in Sample Ratio of 

th (a) (b) (b) to (a) 
Division Jo 
MiddterAtlantion.? 057-04. ae t aoe 1,014 ae 3.3 
BSOUEL dara eates Mae nee ee ae 3,200 37 2 
Hast North) Central. a 2,346 Le 0.9 
West North Central 325.000) 2. 2,648 38 1.4 
Dati tain air he Latah ea Sh a 545 7 1.3 
Pacific wives. PE PTR OREN AR ie el UPF Ae 408 18 44 


Because separate returns for the populations of villages are 
made only when the villages are incorporated, it was necessary to 
study incorporated villages. This procedure was justified, not only 
because 59 per cent. of all villages of between 250 and 2,500 popula- 
tions are incorporated, but also because the incorporated villages 
contain 70 per cent. of the total village population. Table II shows 
by divisions the percentage of all villages that are incorporated. 
The total number of all villages and their total population were 
taken from the 1921 Rand McNally Atlas, which presents figures 
for the year 1920. 


APPENDIX C 153 


TABLE II—TOTAL VILLAGE POPULATION, 1920 


All Villages Incorporated Villages 
Number Population Number Population Ratio of 


Division (a) (b) (c) (d) (c) to (a) 

% 

AL ae Sere, 2k 17,249 12,079,631 10,161 8,426,385 58.9 
Middle Atlantic ...... 3,027 2,154,431 1,014 =1,035,710 33.5 
SORTS Gch baw et bss 5,798 3,999,160 3,200 2,695,590 AB? 
East North Central ... 3,504 2,475,587 2,346 1,937,589 67.0 
West North Central ... 2,989 2,081,129 2, 648 1,916,700 88.6 
MCMMMAUL I Se oes ele ae 979 694,603 545 456,522 55.8 
RACING ahs ios woe peo ws 952 674,721 408 384,274 42.9 


INCREASE OF POPULATION 


If the sample is representative, its rate of increase in population 
should be generally similar to that of all incorporated villages. 
Table III shows this to be true. The Mountain division was 
excluded because only three of the sample villages were incorporated 
in 1900. This procedure was necessary because the Census does not 
collect data on population of unincorporated villages. 


TABLE III—INCREASE OF VILLAGE POPULATION, 1900-1920 


All Incorporated 127 Viilages 

Villages in Sample 
Division Jo %o 
ETE EAT ICK 4 WIG Y hee Fis dee Gade hk OLD 19.4 12.9 
PALES ey ene SOU eh owe Coe is 49.7 64.5 
PeeeereGLitiy ON TAL. Ladd Gane bo bee cae ete seek & 9.0 137. 
CR EMEU OES IY COUT AL (ic oe va dite nek dbiee nee 20.5 18.0 
MEAT eee tc ue Ge yc chee Linke ce ke 59.2 85.9 


The increases are greatest in the South and the Pacific divisions, 
being respectively about 15 points and 26 points greater in the sample 
villages. The differences in the other divisions vary from 2 to 6 
points.* 


DIFFERENCE IN SIZE 


The most important test of the adequacy of the sample is the 
influence of size of population upon the characteristics being studied. 
Table IV shows the average size of the 155 sample villages com- 
pared with the average population of the atlas villages and of “all 
incorporated” villages. 

This table shows that the average size of the sample villages is 


4¥For a full discussion of the factors affecting the increase in population, see page 
154 of A Census Analysis of American Villages, by C. Luther Fry. 


154 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


larger than that of all villages. The question therefore arises: 
Does this difference destroy the validity of the sample? To ascer- 
tain the effect of size, it was decided to analyze by size the villages 
of the West North Central division, since they are the most 
homogeneous group because there are so few large cities in the 
division. ‘These villages were divided into three groups of equal 
range of population, 250 to 1,000, 1,000 to 1,750, and 1,750 to 2,500, 
described hereafter as small, medium and large. The age and sex 
distribution, the marital condition, and the percentage of widowed 
females 65 years of age and over, were then calculated separately for 
the sixteen small, the fifteen medium, and the seven large villages. 
Tables V, VI, VII and VIII show the results of these calculations. 


TABLE IV—AVERAGE POPULATION OF VILLAGES, 1920 


Rand McNally All 
Division Atlas Incorporated Sample 
Niddie mA tlantic. 10. «Ab eeul anes ples 732 1,021 1,099 
SOGTERLL MES ree arate sh coate tthe bats As eas eee 690 842 1,292 
Bastévorth Central's, <0: revere sons 707 826 1,419 
West? North Central ee). aleeee 696 724 1,209 
NIOULLAM Ie ley eee ae Remon 710 838 1,403 
PACE Beets Pe Sols ties apn ice 709 942 1,314 


Table V shows that the influence of difference in size on age- 
distribution is virtually negligible; but that sex-distribution is slightly 
affected, there being constantly lower ratios of males to females as 
the villages get larger. That these differences are not important, 
however, is shown by a detailed comparison of population by sex for 
each size of village. For the native-born white, the small village has 
1.4 points more males than the medium-size village and 2 points 
more than the large village. The medium-size village has only six- 
tenths of a point more males than the large village. As might be 
expected these differences for the foreign-born white are somewhat 
greater. 

In Table V, it should be noted that percentages for the medium- 
size villages do not differ appreciably from the percentages of the 
small-size villages. This fact is particularly significant for the study 
when it is remembered that the average size of the sample villages 
in each division is in the medium-size class, and that the average 
size of all incorporated villages, which contain 70 per cent. of all 
the village population, is either in the medium-size group or near the 
upper limits of the small class. Since it has been shown that there 
is no appreciable difference in age and sex distribution between the 
small and the medium-size villages, this sample of medium-size 
villages may be used as representative of all villages. 


OO SS a eee 


oo 


155 


APPENDIX C 


Tet cS 
6cl Stl 
O'eT cZl 
| 672 
a ak 
=)e3 ve 
% % 
a W 
4920 PUD SQ 


p9-SP 


br-ST 


W 


9° OT 0° v 
Gr rT o i 
a OT i v 
sayy 44 Uso g-ub13a40 4 
STI Srl cy SP 
09T SCL es TS 
orl Ltt 6+ ov 
% % % % 
SIPLY Jf Us4OG-92140 NT 
d WN d W 
Cl 4apuyn G 4apuy) 


abp fo sava x 


SHOVTIIIA ‘IVYLNG) HIYON LSaM ge 


LLY acs 
O'Sr O°SS 
Or 02S 
£cS Zev 
Z£1S e837 
£0S LO6v 
% % 
4 W 
saby 11 


9°60T eeeeoe os1eT 
CC stamina te tN 
ViCelte Soo aa eutS 
0'16 eevee sie] 
1S en ee a 
636 ‘ott tt [pews 
% 
SI]DULI sab0] 
o} “1A 
S310] fo 
fo aB4S 
OHO 


SUAOVTTIA AO NOILNEGIMLSIG XHS GNV ADV NOdN 4ZIS JO LOddda—A ATAVL 


156 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Table VI shows little difference in marital condition caused by 
difference in size of village. The large villages show larger per- 
centages of single persons for both sexes than either of the other 
two classes of villages. But again, the difference between the 
medium and the small villages in respect to marital condition appears 
to be too small to be significant. 


TABLE VI—EFFECT OF SIZE UPON MARITAL CONDITION OF 
VILLAGERS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 


38 West NortH CENTRAL VILLAGES 


Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Size of Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 
Villages %o Yo %o Jo Yo To Yo %o 


Siriaas ol aitaionk 25.5 60.9 61.6 D3 12.1 6 iz 
Medium .. 31.8 oral 61.5 58.8 5.9 13.2 6 7 
Large .... 35.4 33.2 58.5 53.0 5.4 12.7 2 8 


Table VII shows that the percentage of widowed females 65 
years of age and over increases with the size of the village, that for 
the native-born white there is an actual increase of 5.6 points from 
the small to the large village. For the foreign-born white, the 
increase is 6.3 points. But the medium-size village, which is the 
typical village of the sample, strikes an average between the small 
and the large village; this average size again justifying the use of 
the sample as a basis for calculation. 


TABLE VII—EFFECT OF SIZE OF VILLAGES UPON THE PER- 
CENTAGE OF WIDOWED FEMALES 65 YEARS OF AGE AND 


OVER 
38 West NortH CENTRAL VILLAGES 
Widowed 
Size of Native-Born White Foreign-Born White 
Villages Jo % 
PRETUAEL Tatas 1s ol ea bid OER ane ieee eC Uk 50.7 47.7 
M eclitein thie oe ay A ead Regie We 53.9 52.3 
Lr We AiG He OU Ne Oras eek eee Ra naenee & ok 56.3 54.0 


As a final test of the influence of the size of villages upon the 
reliability of the sample, the nativity composition of the 38 incor- 
porated villages of the West North Central division was compared 
with the nativity composition of the medium-size villages, as is 
shown in Table VIII. 

This table shows a quite insignificant difference of three-tenths 
of a point in the nativity composition between the medium-size and 
the total sample villages. It must be recognized, however, in deal- 


So 


OE a 


APPENDIX C 157 


ing with the reliability of the sample, that of these characteristics 
examined, no one can be used as providing a sufficient test in itself. 
They must be considered in their interrelationship as describing 
the whole sample. One thing stands out as characteristic of these 
data on the different size villages; namely, a variation related to the 
size of the village in each category tested. The large villages show 
fewer married and more single persons for both sexes, and more 
white widowed females 65 years of age and over, than do the small 
and medium-size villages. But these differences do not destroy the 
reliability of the sample. The analysis has shown that the medium- 
size and the small villages differ very slightly from each other; 
therefore, since the villages analyzed fall within the medium-size 
group, and since the average of all incorporated villages falls on the 
border line between these two groups, it is evident that the sample 1s 
sufficiently representative of all villages. 


TABLE VIII—COMPARISON OF ALL VILLAGES AND OF 
MEDIUM-SIZE VILLAGES 


38 West Nortu CENTRAL VILLAGES 
Native-Born White Foreign-Born White 


4 % 
CUE SALTO ad iigls's die to 5\s's\ioe a'ssin ales 88.1 11.9 
Wiedmim-size villages J.0.0-....0's sess 87.8 12:2 


Method of Utilizing Data 


In order to hold the nativity factor constant,® the population was 
separated into native-born white, foreign-born white, and Negro. 
All others, that is, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc., exist in these 
villages in numbers too small to be treated as the other nativity 
groups are treated in this study, and were, therefore, excluded from 
the calculations. 

The following method was used to calculate the open-country 
population. The total village population was broken up into 
nativity-groups and sex-groups on the basis of the percentages of 
each nativity-group and sex-group of the sample® in each division. 
These classifications were already available for the total rural popu- 


5 By holding constant one factor is meant keeping the influence of that factor the 
same in each group of data under comparison while other factors are varied. or 
example, when comparing the sex-ratio of the village and of the open country for the 
native-born white population, any differences that occur cannot be owing to different 
nativity composition of the two classes, for the same nativity group has been used in 
each case—the native-born white populations of village and of open country. Nativity 
has been held constant by classification. The difference must therefore be owing to 
the effect of the variable factors, village life and country life, on the population. 

6 Because 250 was the lower limit of population of a village, as defined by the In- 
stitute, not all of the places which the Census considers as villages have been here 


included. 


158 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


lation. Therefore, the subtraction of the estimated total village 
population in each of these classifications from the corresponding 
total rural gave the estimated total open-country population for 
each of the required groups. 

Fortunately, it was not necessary to follow this long and cum- 
bersome method when computing the other characteristics for com- 
parison. The total rural population consists of the total village and 
the total open-country population. Since the village and the total 
rural population are known, it is a simple mathematical process to 
solve for the open country; because any percentage of total rural 
is equal to the weighted average’ of the corresponding percentages 
for the village and the open country provided they are combined 
in the relative proportions in which they actually occur. In other 
words, the total rural population was generalized into an equation 
based upon the relation which the village population bears to the 
open-country population. This ratio was calculated separately by 
sex for each nativity class and for each division, by dividing the 
village population into the open-country population.* The equation 
follows: 


7 By a “weighted average” is meant an average calculated by giving to each item, 
instead of the value one, a value which represents what part it is of the whole. For 
example, we want to get the average per cent. of widowed females 65 years of age 
and over of the village and of the open country. Take the South, native-born white 
population. Here the open-country population is five times as large as that of the 
yiage, so we get a ratio of 5 to 1. In other words, the per cent. of village population 
should be multiplied by one and the per cent. of open-country population for this 
class should be multiplied by five. The sum of these products should then be divided 
by six instead of two. The result is the weighted average. 


SoutHERN Native-Born Wuite Femares 65 YEARS oF AGE AND OVER 


Widowed Weights 
0 % 
Villageda eicdy Piss aaa ele sono. Cable 60.2 1 60.2 
Kinen Country 2 iscsdssiessGa eas cases 50.8 5 254.0 





_—_— 


6 314.2 
314.2% ~- 6 = 52.4%, which is the weighted average, and which differs from 
55.6%, which is the simple arithmetic average. 


8 The assumption underlying this method; namely, that the ratio of village to open- 
country population remains the same for each age-period, is probably not entirely true. 
It may be argued that it would be more accurate to use the method of securing actual 
numbers for the classes of the open-country population by the method of subtracting the 
village population from the total rural population than by calculating the percentages as 
has been done in this study. It seems that the method of calculating the open-country 
data by the use of equations is more accurate for the following reasons. The ratio is 
an average ratio for the whole group comprising the different classes. Therefore, the 
use of the ratio tends to give an accurate result because of the compensating errors. In 
some cases a percentage might be slightly too large, in others slightly too small. The 
ratio, assumed to be the same for each class, would tend to eliminate these deviations. 
On the other hand, if the subtraction method were used, the exact error traceable to 
the lack of complete reliability in the sample would be kept and reproduced in the 
calculation of the open-country population. The relative accuracy of the two methods 
is shown in calculating the sex-ratio (males to 100 females) for the open country. The 
calculation of the ratio of males to females for the open country by the use of the actual 
numbers gives 116.4 for the native-born whites of the Middle Atlantic division; while the 
equation method gives 114.5, or a difference of 1.9 of a point, which is quite negligible. 
In order to avoid being overmeticulous, a ratio, for example, a -+ 2.6x was changed to 
a + 2.5x, and one of a+ 2.9x to a+ 3x. This method of using the ratios in caicula- 
tions would cause a very slight change in the results obtained. 


APPENDIX C 159 


a is percentage of village population in any class 
x is percentage of open-country population in any 
a+ (n—1)x a pipsielass 
n ~~ b is percentage of total rural population in any class 
n is the sum of the weights, that is, the sum of the 
ratios in which a and x combine to form b 


a and b are known, x is unknown 
If the ratio of the village population to the open-country population is 1 to 3, 
then the equation will read: 


at Oey 
4 =a 


a+ 3x= 4b 
3x 40-4 
Le SU Bg 


3 


The known values are substituted for a and b and the equation 
solved for x. 

Before proceeding to analysis of the data, there remains a final 
question: How can a difference be recognized as significant? Inas- 
much as the accuracy of the estimates of the open-country popula- 
tion depends upon the accuracy of the village data, it is important 
carefully to check the reliability of the village sample; and ordi- 
narily this would be done by applying purely mathematical tests. 
Instead of this, another method was used. The different divisions 
were studied to discover differences between the village and the 
open-country populations, and, where these differences were found 
to show a consistent tendency from division to division, they were 
held to be significant. 


Results of the Analysis 


In presenting the results of the analysis of the village and the 
open-country populations, the characteristics will be taken up in the 
following order: (1) Nativity and color composition, (2) sex-dis- 
tribution, (3) age-distribution by sex, (4) marital condition, (5) il- 
literacy by nativity and color, (6) occupation by sex; and by color 
and sex for the South, because of the large number of Negroes in 
this region. Except in cases of the marital condition 15 years of 
age and over, percentages in the source tables have not been pre- 
sented where the base is less than 100; but in the text they have 
been presented for comparative purposes.® Moreover, in this study 
only the southern group of sample villages was used as representa- 
tive for the Negro. 

There is about the same percentage of native-born white in both 


9In every text table where such percentages have been presented the fact that the 
base is less than 100 has been clearly indicated. 


160 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


the village and the open-country populations of the East North 
Central division. In the South, the native-born white population 
in the village is greater by 1.9 points than in the open country. 
But the South has a large proportion of Negroes, who make up 26.6 
per cent. of its village and 28.2 per cent. of its open-country popula- 
tion. The two North Central divisions are the only ones that show 
a higher percentage of foreign-born white population in the villages 
than in the open country. The remaining divisions show much 
larger percentages of native-born white population in the villages 
than in the open country. Table IX shows that in the Middle 
Atlantic, Mountain and Pacific divisions, the open country attracts 
relatively more of the foreign-born white population than do the 
villages. The reverse tendency which is to be found in the East and 
West North Central divisions, is probably traceable to the fact that 
the great majority of the foreign-born in these divisions are from 
Northwestern Europe. 


TABLE IX—NATIVITY AND COLOR COMPOSITION * FOR 
VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


Native-Born Foreign-Born 
W hte White Negro 
Open Open Open 
Village Country Village Country Village Country 
Division J Jo % Jo 0 % 
Middle Atlantic ....... 94.7 81.2 45 16.7 8 1.9 
South Mer wie ret chee 71.8 69.9 1.6 1.5 26.6 28.2 
East North Central .... 90.3 90.7 9.4 8.0 a 1.0 
West North Central ... 87.2 89.4 11.8 9.1 8 9 
Mistintaitr os foe ne oto 92.9 77.5 6.3 15.9 ie 9 
atic ake ease ees 87.2 74.8 10.8 19.5 S We 


® “All others” have been excluded, therefore percentages will not total 100. 


SEX-DISTRIBUTION 


Table X shows clearly the striking differences between the 
village and the open country in ratio of males to 100 females. 

There is a greater percentage of native-born white females than 
males in the villages, except in the Mountain and the Pacific di- 
visions. The slightly greater number of males than females in the 
villages of the Mountain division fits in with the general preponder- 
ance of males in that division. The same may be said for the Pacific 
division. But the significant point is the general tendency for the 
number of males to 100 females to show, in all divisions except the 
South, about the same ratio of difference, between the village and 
the open country. Furthermore, the village ratios of males to 100 fe- 


APPENDIX C 161 


males are different from the corresponding ratios for cities of differ- 
ent sizes.1° Here then, in the sex-distribution, is found a significant 
difference between the populations of village and of open country. 


TABLE X—RATIO OF MALES TO 100 FEMALES BY NATIVITY 
AND COLOR FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY * 


Native-Born Foreign-Born 
W hite White Negro 
Open Open Open 
Division Village Country Viuliage Country Village Country 

Middle Atlantic ...... 87.4 114.5 105.6 Lagee 88.3 71 
(Gy Alaa 94.1 108.4 121.5 162.1 90.6 102.2 
East North Central ... 90.1 113.2 111.6 144.6 91.1 128.8 
West North Central .. 94.2 112.7 118.7 145.8 107.8 120.8 
BCMA ha se os ens 102.8 122.9 170.9 166.7 + + 
emt ke ss key ee coe 100.0 127.1 148.4 193.0 108.9 193.5 


* Formulas showing ratio of village to open-country population by sex, nativity and 
color are as follows: 


va. Native-Born White Foreign-Born White Negro 

Division Male Female Male Female Male Female 
Middle Atlantic ... a+1.6x a-+1.2x a+6.7x a+5.1x a-+4.4x a-+ 3.3x 
Swi) GA eee a+ 5.2x a-+4.6x a-+5.3x a-+3.9x a-+5.6x a- 4.9x 
East North Central. a+ 2.7x a+2.1x a+2.3x a-+1.8x a-+9.5x a- 6.7x 
West North Central. a+ 3.1x a+2.6x a+2.3x a+1.9x a-+3.3x a-+ 2.9x 
WVTQUinitditt) 2s sic « 01s,<78 a+19x a+16x a+5.1x a+5.3x a+7.9x a-+ 22.5x 
ACHIOMD corres «ors 0'5,6 a-+s20x “a'p1.6x (a+ 4.2x (a--+ 3.2x a +i lic.” a+ 0.6x 


+ Insufficient data. 


AGE-DISTRIBUTION 


NATIVE-BorN WHITE 

The comparison of the village and open-country population by 
age-periods shows striking differences.1t Table XI shows that 
among the native-born whites of both sexes, there are greater per- 
centages of population under 5 years of age in the open country than 
in the village. The differences average about 2 points. The differ- 
ence is greatest in the Middle Atlantic and least in the Pacific 
division. The southern region, whose age-distribution shows for all 
classes a close correspondence with the age-distribution for the total 
United States, has a 1.9 greater percentage of each sex under 5 
years of age in the open country than in the village. The fact that 
in the Pacific division the percentage difference for this age-period 
is only one point greater for the open-country population than for 
the village, may be owing to the presence in this division of large 
numbers of casual laborers in lumbering, mining and agriculture. 
That such an explanation is plausible is indicated by the low per- 
centage (only 49 per cent.) +? of married males 15 years of age and 

10 Fourteenth Census of the United States, Vol. II, pp. 136-139, shows that there is 
a higher ratio of males to females for the urban population than for the villages in the 
eorresponding Census divisions, except in the Mountain and the Pacific divisions and 


among the Negroes in the South and West North Central. , 
11 For complete data, all ages, consult source tables at end of this study. 


12 See Table XXIII. 


162 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


over in the open country in this division. For the open-country 
population of the South, 61 per cent. of males 15 years of age and 
over are married; which is 12 points more than in the Pacific 
division, or 16 points more when the influence of age is held constant 
by standardizing the age-distribution.1* Thus the ordinary differ- 
ences which hold for the other divisions, hold for these two also; 
but to a less extent. Quite possibly this may be owing to the peculiar 
cultural conditions in these two divisions—the large amount of 
migratory labor in the Pacific division and the prevailing agricul- 
tural life of the South. 

When the percentages under 15 years of age in the village and 
in the open country are compared, the differences become more 
striking as is also shown in Table XI. 


TABLE XI—NUMBER OF POINTS BY WHICH THE PERCENTAGE 
OF CHILDREN AMONG THE NATIVE-BORN WHITES IN 
THE OPEN COUNTRY EXCEED THOSE IN THE VILLAGE 


Years of Age 


Children under 5 Children under 15 
Division Male Female Male Female 
Niddie *Atiantio woe). 54%01.0 6 4.1 41 11.3 10.1 
SSuth Weak see eet eee 1.9 1.9 5.4 4.3 
Fast. NorthyGentrall ic. see 1.9 1.8 53 4.2 
West North Central ........ 2.3 2.1 5:7 4.7 
lot tatnn me rene a vs ted oe fay) oe 6.2 5.0 
Pacific aes etc t eo ane Mal 1.0 4.2 2% 


In the period 15-44 years of age (combining the 10-year age- 
periods of source tables) a significant change occurs. 


TABLE XII—NATIVE-BORN WHITE POPULATION 15-44 YEARS 
OF AGE, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


Male Female 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 

Division % Jo Jo Jo 
Middle Atlantic ys sis'sas oho oh bie 19.1 21.4 kes 18.4 
South is vawe sa eek ey ee ene fA Ww | 21.8 24.5 20.6 
Hast. North? Centratr.2 0s os0e 19.5 22.8 23.4 20.0 
West eNorth Central oi. 9.7 See 21.4 24.0 24.4 id 
Mibutitait fase yates vited tok ae 23.4 23.9 24.2 18.4 
PACliCuly et eteae oe hte arent. 2ue 22 PaaS: 19.6 


The males, for all divisions combined, show an average of about 
2.0 points more in the open country than in the village, a difference 
so small that it is virtually negligible. But the females show from 
2.7 to 5.8 points more in the village than in the open country. The 
change to a greater percentage of females in the village population 

18 See footnote 19, showing method of standardizing age. 


APPENDIX C 163 


occurs as the source tables show in each division 14 in the period 
15-24 years of age. 

Table XIII shows the percentages of population for village and 
for open country for the age-period 45-64 years. For this age- 
period there are 3.5 points more males in the village than in the 
open country in the Middle Atlantic division. In the South, the 
East North Central, and the West North Central respectively, there 
are 1.4, 1.4, and 2.1 points more males in the village than in the 
open country. In the Mountain and in the Pacific divisions there 
are respectively 1.3 and 0.2 points more males in the village than in 
the open country. 


TABLE XIII—NATIVE-BORN WHITE POPULATION 45-64 YEARS 
OF AGE, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


Male Female 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 

Division % %o 0 % 
Bee UAC ls. esd. on 3s 10.8 7.3 12.8 48 
RRM Te is, oc kas olee fag 8.1 6.7 8.0 5.3 
maervotth Central 2:...0.0. 0%. 98 8.4 10.6 6.5 
West’ North Central ........... 8.7 6.6 8.5 4.7 
OOS TI A a a Ps) a ara 8.2 6.9 6.5 3.9 
hel UAL gal ea a a 9.6 9.4 8.7 SW) 


There are larger percentages of females of this age-period (45-64 
years) in the village than in the open country; the differences range 
from 8.0 per cent. in the Middle Atlantic division to 2.6 per cent. in 
the Mountain. 


TABLE XIV—NATIVE-BORN WHITE POPULATION 65 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 


COUNTRY 
Male Female 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 
Division 0 %o % % 
merce Atlantic’... cuss. sce ss 4.8 1.9 6.2 1.1 
OO Baie edo Sar a 2.6 2.0 2.8 1.7 
mast orth ‘Central ....:....... 3.8 a5 4.3 1.9 
Muect= North Central :,:....... 3.2 1.6 a3 1.1 
MMT AITD UCR SA ho eclectic 's 2 Wes 1.7 6 
BSINODES ces LIE eke vie 3.4 G45) 3.1 0.9 


In the period of 65 years of age and over, significant differences 
again occur; relatively more old persons being found in the villages 
and more females than males. 


14 See tables of age-distribution of population by sex for each division at the end of 
this study. 


164 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


The analysis of the age-distribution for the native-born white 
population has shown that the open country has a larger percentage 
than the village of those under 15 years of age of both sexes; that 
the village has a larger percentage of adult women than the open 
country and a larger percentage of men 45 years of age and over ; 
finally, that the village has relatively more who are 65 years of age 
and over, the preponderance of women in this group being greater 
than that of the men. 


FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 


TABLE XV—FOREIGN-BORN WHITE POPULATION 15 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY AGE AND SEX FOR VILLAGE AND 
OPEN COUNTRY 


MALE 
Years of Age 
15-44 45-64 65 and over 
Open Open Open 
Village Country Village Country Village Country 
Division % Jo Jo Jo % 0 
Middle Atlantic ....... 18.0 35.6 18.7 16.8 12.8 3.6 
SOUT us co vhs (oleae aan 29.7 33.0 14.8 WZ 4.3 6.5 
East North Central .... 14.0 277 21.0 A We 16.7 8.8 
West North Central ... 15.2 25:2 22.4 24.3 15.4 9.0 
Monntain verreres casts 31.1 36.6 22.5 16.6 1 4.3 
PACHIC Os cu ca wee ceo eee 27.4 35.6 19.2 21.9 8.7 6.3 
FEMALE 
Middle Atlantic ....... 177 26.2 17.1 10.7 12.8 2.9 
OU, os ienieey henna 23 19.4 8.6 10.0 3.6 3.8 
East North Central .... 12.6 19.4 19.2 13.2 14.7 6.2 
West North Central ... 12.6 17.0 19.1 15.4 13.0 6.7 
Motintain was 1 ehh os 19.1 20.7 12.6 9.0 4.6 2.8 
Paciticays bois sone toning 2 19.1 17.7 11.1 17.1 6.3 3.2 


In the white population there is, on the whole, an age-distribution 
for the foreign-born distinctly different from that for the native- 
born. There are virtually no foreign-born white persons under 5 
years of age, and only about 2 per cent. under 15 years of age.’® 
The average age in this nativity-group is less in the open country 
for both sexes, except in the case of females in the South, a variation 
which may be caused by the Mexicans in the southwest. In the 
villages of the Middle Atlantic, the East North Central and the West 
North Central divisions, there are larger percentages of males 45-64 
years of age than in any other period. For the remaining divisions, 
the larger percentages of males are in the period 15-44 years of age, 
quite possibly owing to the Mexicans in the population. For females 
in villages the larger percentages are in the period 15-44 years of 


15 See tables showing age-distribution, at the end of this study, 


APPENDIX C 165 


age, except in the East and West North Central divisions. The 
largest percentages of females in the open country in all divisions are 
in the period 15-44 years of age. 


NEGROES *° 
Approximately 90 per cent. of all Negroes in the United States 


are in the South. In the South there is, for males, little difference 
in the age-distribution of the Negro and the native-white population. 
The comparative characteristics of the latter for the village and the 
open country have already been pointed out. There are more males 
among the Negroes in the open country than in the village, except 
for the period 15-44 years of age. The greater percentage of males 
in the village in the period 15-44 years of age is probably owing to 
the occupational concentration of Negroes in manufacturing. 


TABLE XVI—NEGRO POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX FOR 
VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY * 


MALE 
Years of Age 
Under 15 15-44 45-64 65 and over 
is re © 2 © = & a 
Sere Bui) ee) Gus earn rele 
aa Cee = iss = Se Wises 
aS ae hs) we Ob we Ob pate te 1 
Division % % % %o % Jo % % 
Middle Atlantic ...... 146 14.7 17:27 8288 10.6 8.8 AS 137 
hd PR ae 163722 Pe Lineal & 6.5 7.4 jy Ge Bh 
Hast North Central .. 10.3. .15.4 LE LG S yeh tn a BS 3.007) ee 
West North Central .. 179 13.9 17.3. 26.6 1 AS Loh RE 4.05759 
7 CUS ee Sy ae 15.4 9.7 213) 440.8 PAI AS.S ASE 
FEMALES 
Middle Atlantic ...... 18.7 14.0 21.6 24.6 7.6 6.2 A eh by 
BETTE ces cas be We Pal 27-97 222 6.0 4.9 19 1.4 
East North Central ... 14.0 14.2 30.8 19.1 5.6 7.4 19s" 238 
West North Central .. 124 158 eo 20k 8.9 6.8 KA 


_ * Data for the Negro by age-periods for the Mountain division and for the females 
in the Pacific division are too meager for presentation. 


The proportion of male Negroes is nine-tenths of a point 
greater in the open country than in the village for those 45-64 years 
of age, and a tenth of a point greater for those 65 years of age 
and over. These percentages are not pointed out as significant differ- 
ences, but as showing a slight variation from the age-distribution of 

16 See source tables for age-distribution. The variability outside of the South may 


be owing to the small number of cases for the Negro in these divisions. The percentages 
by age-periods outside of the South are not presented as significant, but to indicate what 


the data show, 


166 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


the native-born white with which the Negro age-distribution was 
compared. 

Of Negro females in the South, beginning with the period 15-44 
years of age, there are larger percentages in the village than in the 
open country, a characteristic that is true of the native-born white 
females in all divisions. 

But in the divisions other than the South, the Negro population 
does not show the regularity of differences between the village and 
the open country found to be characteristic of the native-born white. 
For the Middle Atlantic division there is a greater percentage of 
females under 5 years of age in the village than in the open country, 
while the reverse is true for the males. In the West North Central 
division, there is a greater percentage of males under 5 years of age 
in the village than in the open country. The other age-periods 
show, in the different divisions, the same variability; so that the 
only general difference between the village and the open country 
that can be pointed out is the greater percentage of old people 65 
years of age and over in the villages. The varying percentages in the 
different age-periods from division to division are probably to be 
accounted for by the different occupational status of the Negroes in 
the different areas, which probably results in people of different 
ages being selected for different occupations. For example, manu- 
facturing probably selects workers from the period 15-44 years of 
age, while personal and domestic service would probably select both 
the younger and the older workers rather than those of the middle 
age-periods. 

This comparison has shown significant differences between the 
village and the open-country populations by age, by sex, and by 
nativity classes; has shown a larger percentage of children in the 
open country; a larger percentage of females, beginning with the 
period 15-24 years of age, in the village for both the native-born 
white and the Negro; has shown particularly a larger percentage 
of old people in the village population for both sexes. It has shown 
also a general similarity in age-distribution for the Negro and the 
native-born white of the South, except in the period 15-44 years of 
age, in which there is a larger percentage of male Negroes in the vil- 
lage than in the open country. It has shown wide variability among 
the small number of Negroes in the other divisions; and for all 
divisions the same general tendencies for the foreign-born white as 
for the native-born white, subject to modification by the special age- 
groupings of an immigrant population. 


APPENDIX C 167 


MARITAL CONDITION—SINGLE 


NATIVE-BoRN WHITE?" 


TABLE XVII—SINGLE NATIVE-BORN WHITES 15 YEARS OF AGE 
AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


MALE FEMALE 
; Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 

Division % Jo Jo % 
MIO PIATING 5 oes « o0s'e hae: hte 41.7 27.3 29.9 
RRO Pees te kre os cae Sens 32.8 34.2 29.4 25.1 
MectaNorth Centraly . i ac.6.6 06 32.2 ahd 29.9 25.4 
West North Central ........... 36.5 41.7 KYA) 28.8 
MECN Pe ain ok was aiae a2 33.0 43.1 23.8 24.3 
Re es a eis ON so whey ie 8 3 Bo 44.5 23.4 23.9 


For native-born white males there are striking differences be- 
tween the village and the open country in the per cent. single. The 
differences in the marital condition pointed out in this section must 
not be accepted as final, because age and sex distribution affects the 
per cent. single and married. The significance of the age and sex 
distribution in marital condition will be discussed later. In every 
case there are more single males in the open country than in the 
village. These differences vary from 14.5 points in the Middle 
Atlantic to 1.4 points in the South. The next smallest difference is 
5.1 points, for the East North Central division. In the West North 
Central division it is 5.2; in the Mountain, 10.1; and in the Pacific, 
11.0 points. For native-born white females, the differences in per 
cent. single in open country and village are less than for males. The 
South, the West North Central and the East North Central divisions 
show greater percentages of single females in the villages, while the 
other divisions show greater percentages of single females in the 
open country. The tendency would seem to be to have a greater per- 
centage of single females in the village because the difference between 
the sum of the percentages of the divisions in which there are more 
single females in the villages and the sum of the percentages in the 
divisions in which there are more single females in the open coun- 
try, shows a preponderance of 9 points in the relative number of 
females in the villages. The Middle Atlantic, Mountain and Pacific 
divisions have larger percentages of single males in all age-periods 
in the open country than in the villages. For the East North Central 
division, there is a greater percentage of single males in the village 
up to the period 45 years of age, when the change to a greater per- 
centage in the open country takes place. 


17 Source tables at the end of this study show the marital condition by 10-year age- 
periods, nativity, color, and sex, 


168 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


There are larger percentages of single females in the village in 
every age-period for the South and Middle Atlantic divisions. For 
the West North Central division there are larger percentages of 
single females up to the period 55 years of age and in the East North 
Central division, up to 65 years; while in the Mountain division, 
the open country has the larger percentage beginning with the period 
95-64 years of age, and in the Pacific division, the open country has 
a greater percentage single in the periods 35-54 years of age and 
65 years of age and over. These trends show conclusively a decided 
difference between the open-country and the village population in 
the percentage of single native-born whites 15 years of age and over. 


FOREIGN-BorN WHITE 


TABLE XVIII—SINGLE FOREIGN-BORN WHITES 15 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 


COUNTRY 
MALE FEMALE 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 

Division % Jo 0 % 
Middle SAtlanitic .o ts steer tee 18.0 24.7 9.2 10.3 
SHITE ACE ate it ney eee ace 23.8 320 15.9 12.5 
East North’ Central’). 39) 10.8 25.0 6.5 Epos 
West North -Central’........... 18.9 2.2 8.4 6.7 
PLOUDEAIT pete Sid ade vc ee Ce a 24.9 39.7 9.4 9.5 
Fg Teh CRM Nie BY BONA pad lediting BO a: 28.4 42.1 10.2 8.7 


The same general differences that hold for the native-born white 
hold for the foreign-born white, but to a greater degree. The exag- 
geration of the differences may result from the general excess of 
males over females in this nativity-group. Table X shows that the 
differences between the ratios of males to 100 females for the vil- 
lage and the open-country foreign-born white are greater than the 
differences between the corresponding ratios for the native-born 
white. For the foreign-born white, the proportion of single females 
in the villages is 4.4 points greater than in the open country, although 
there is a slight variation in the Opposite direction in some cases. 
The marital condition of the open-country population by 10-year 
age-periods for this nativity group was estimated for only the West 
North Central division, for which a large enough sample was avail- 
able. The first and last periods, 15-24 years of age, and 65 years of 
age and over, show a greater percentage of single males in the open 
country. This characteristic of the first period is probably owing 
to the excess of men in the open country, for which the ratio of 
males to 100 females for the period 15-24 years of age is 147. A 
striking characteristic of the foreign-born white is the small propor- 


APPENDIX C 169 


tion of single females, 15 years of age and over, about 7 per cent. 
or 8 per cent. in both the village and the open-country population 
as compared with 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. for the native-born 
white. In the West North Central division, the great excess of 
males over females among the foreign-born white, 118.7 males to 
100 females in the village and 145.8 males to 100 females in the 
open country, would result in a smaller percentage of single females 
for this group than for the other nativity groups. Furthermore, the 
concentration of females in the foreign-born nativity group in the 
period 25-44 years of age would result in a larger percentage married 
and a smaller percentage single than if more of the foreign-born 
white population were to fall in the 15-24 age-period. 


NEGRO 


TABLE XIX—SINGLE NEGROES 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, 
BY SEX FOR. VILLAGE AND OPEN: COUNTRY 


MALE FEMALE 
Open Open 
ore Village Country Village Country 
Division % Jo %o % 
Dr URS a 2s ree a te 34.1 * 39.7 foe 23.3 
TLE) Bae a aa ee teat 34.6 31.1 28.4 24.4 
Mest North Central. ......3..2. 25.4 40.3 24.2 22.6 


* Base less than 100. Data for East North Central, Mountain and Pacific divisions 
too meager for presentation. 


Only in the South does the Negro present a really satisfactory 
sample for purposes of analysis into separate age-classes with respect 
to marital condition. But in two of the other divisions the number 
in the combined age-classes 15 years of age and over is sufficiently 
large to group and present in these classifications. It is a question 
whether the Negro situation in the South should be held to be the 
normal, or whether the distribution in the other divisions should 
be so considered. The Negroes are numerically greater in the South ; 
but their cultural milieu is quite different from that of Negroes 
in the other divisions. It is therefore better to discuss the two 
groups separately, South and not-South. For the not-South, the 
same tendencies hold as for the native-born white in the same divi- 
sions. For the South, there are greater percentages of single Negro 
males by 3.5 points in the villages than in the open country. This 
is a complete reversal of the tendencies that hold for the Negroes 
in the other divisions, and for other nativity groups in all divisions. 
This difference, although it is a complete reversal of the general 
tendency, which showed a larger percentage of single males in the 


170 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


open country, preserves in the South the distinctive character of the 
village and the open-country populations. For female Negroes in 
the South, the same general tendencies hold as in the other divisions, 
and the same tendencies that are shown by other nativity classes in 
all divisions. 


MARITAL CONDITION—MARRIED 


NATIVE-BorN WHITE 

The percentage of those married is just the reverse of the per- 
centage of those single, except in the older age-periods. Therefore, 
the discussion of the percentage married has been very considerably 
shortened. 


TABLE XX—MARRIED NATIVE-BORN WHITES 15 YEARS OF AGE 
AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


MALE FEMALE 
pen Open 
Village Country Village Country 

Division %o Jo % % 
MiddtesAtlanticsii ce ee 66.1 52.8 56.1 64.2 
SOU CL roar sere Te ae 62.3 60.9 S77 66.3 
Hast North Gentrah 4) Ua ee 61.8 SRE 56.4 67.5 
West North Central <2 ....4...% 57.9 54.1 56.0 65.4 
GUNEAT eee Cea Ch ee er wie tee ae 61.7 Die 66.2 69.4 
Pacwic se eee uke ee cor 60.1 49.2 62.6 69.6 


Among the native-born white males, the village has larger per- 
centages married in all divisions than has the open country. For 
the native-born white females the reverse is true. 


FOREIGN-Born WHITE 


TABLE XXI—MARRIED FOREIGN-BORN WHITES 15 YEARS OF 
AGE AND OVER, BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN 


COUNTRY 
MALE FEMALE 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 
Division Jo % %o % 

Middle Atlantic... 6 0.0 ogo, 69.2 70.0 64.3 79.5 
SOUT Ve NOEL Bes Oye eo ait 68.6 59.8 66.6 74.0 
FAstoNOtth Geotail a cede eee 78.2 65.1 65.7 78.1 
West North Central ........... 71.9 67.1 66.3 77.6 
Mountain 208s phi) el Tt a 67.9 5339 fp, 76.2 
Patihe weet cane oe) aie, 61.2 51.3 71.8 78.6 


There is a greater percentage of married among foreign-born 
white males in the open-country population than in the villages of 


APPENDIX C 171 


the Middle Atlantic. But this tendency is offset by the fact that in 
the other divisions greater percentages of males in the villages are 
married than in the open country. The sample for the West North 
Central division shows, for the foreign-born white males, a larger 
percentage married in the village; and for the foreign-born white 
females, a larger percentage married in the open country. 

The same general tendency toward greater percentages of mar- 
ried males in the village than in the open country holds also for the 
Negro males, except in the South where there is a larger percentage 
of married male Negroes in the open country than in the village. 
For the Negro females, the differences between the village and the 
open country are of the same type as in the other nativity groups. 


NEGrRo 28 


TABLE XXII—MARRIED NEGROES 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, 
BY SEX FOR VILLAGE AND OPEN COUNTRY 


MALE FEMALE 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 
Division Jo Jo Jo Jo 
PE TeeC@UN LIATITICI ss 64 0 os'¢,¢'e os0 56.8 * 54.0 50.0 * 63.7 
SU? cag iy 8 el ge 58.1 62.5 52.0 63.1 
West: North Central ....6.5...: 61.9 50.3 60.5 62.5 


* Base less than 100. 


In the discussion of the single foreign-born white element of the 
population, attention was called to the influence of age-distribution 
as affecting the percentage single and married. If a population is 
heavily concentrated in the younger age-period, in which there is a 
smaller percentage married than in the older age-periods, it follows 
that it will have a smaller percentage married 15 years of age and 
over than a population heavily concentrated in the older age-periods. 
Since there is a wide difference in the age-distribution of the village 
and of the open-country population, it is necessary, in order to 
secure comparable data on the percentage married in the two popu- 
lations, to calculate what the percentage married would be if each 
of these populations had the same age-distribution. To do this, the 
age-distribution of a third population (in this case that of the total 
United States, all classes, by sex) 15 years of age and over was 
calculated by 10-year age-periods. This is called the “standard 
population.” The population of the village and that of the open 
country, 15 years of age and over, were then redistributed according 

18 Data probably non-representative for the East North Central, the Mountain, and the 


Pacific divisions, because of the small number of cases. See source tables at the end of 
this study. 


172 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


to the percentages in each 10-year age-period of the “standard popu- 
lation.” ‘This method gives the same age-distribution by 10-year age- 
periods to both the village and the open-country populations. The 
method of this detailed procedure is shown in a footnote,!® while 
the results of the calculation are presented in Table XXIII. This 
table shows the actual per cent. married, 15 years of age and over, 
in the village and in the open country, compared with the percent- 
ages married when the two population groups are standardized. 

The general result of standardizing the age-distribution was to 
reduce for males, and to increase for females, the differences between 
village and open-country percentage married. Among the foreign- 
born white males of the West North Central division, the differ- 
ences between the village and open-country percentage married are 
virtually eliminated by reducing the respective populations to the 
same age-distribution. For the native-born white males of the same 
division, however, the effect of holding the age-factor constant is to 
cause the percentage married in the open country to exceed that in 
the village by four-tenths of a point, despite the fact that the actual 
figures show the village exceeds the open country by 3.8 points. 
The differences already existing in this respect for the Negro males 
in the South is increased by 1 point.2° For the females, the effect 
of standardizing the populations is to accentuate the differences 
between the village and the open country. The only important 
exception to this tendency occurs in the Pacific division. 

The result of this standardizing process is simply to emphasize — 
the fact that the village and the open-country populations show 


19 Method of applying a standard population: 


33 MippLe ATLANTIC VILLAGES 
Males Native-Born ifs 
3 





1 4 5 67 

Population 15 Per Cent. Village Pop- Per Cent. Number 

Years of Age Distribution ulation Accord- Married in Married 
Age- and Over, Males, of Population ing to Per Village by in 
Period all Classes, 1920 «in Column 2 Cent. in Age-Periods Village 

(Thousands Column 3 

omitted) 

15 Bnd OVELs Wass 94 36,920 100.0 11,944 7 5i2 
eee. hy as MAD 9°20 24.9 2/974 17.4 51 
D534 hd ee eee 8,669 2355 2,807 70.6 1,981 
Es ote @ tera Saab ie Lies 753 19.9 Pope iT 82.9 1,970 
A554 MNGIOAL feels) erate 5,653 1523 1,827 84.2 1,538 
5 OOS Wee te tel ene siete wie 3,461 9.4 $123 83.1 933 
65 and Povets....5 2,483 6.7 800 69.0 552 
Wnknrown' 5 «e608 9 a 36 58.3 21 
ane X 100 = 62.9%, or the per cent. married 15 years of age and over if the village 


population had the same age-distribution as the total United States, all classes, 15 years 
of age and over. 

The same method is then applied to the open-country population and the results are 
compared. 

*Column 4 is obtained by multiplying total village population 15 years of age and 
over by items in Column 3. 

t Column 6 is obtained by multiplying Column 4 by Column 5. 


20 Why this change should occur raises a most interesting problem of causation; but 
it is outside the limits of this study. 


APPENDIX C 173 


significant differences in the marital condition. In concluding this 
phase of the discussion, certain general effects of difference in age- 
distribution on the marital condition must be pointed out.2* In the 


TABLE XXIII—DIFFERENCES IN THE PER CENT. MARRIED BE- 
TWEEN THE ACTUAL AND THE STANDARDIZED AGE-DIS- 
TRIBUTION OF VILLAGE AND OPEN-COUNTRY POPULA- 
TION 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 


MALE FEMALE 
Village * Open 
Married Exceeds Married Country 
ben Open Open Open Exceeds 
Class and Division of Village Country Country Village Country Village 
Population % % (Points) Jo Jo (Points) 
NATIVE-Born WHITE 
Middle Atlantic 
Bra Layo darko! 66.1 52.8 a0 56.1 64.2 8.1 
Standardized .... 62.9 56.1 6.8 56.4 65.3 8.9 
South 
PETA Eg ois tee venis fs 60.9 1.4 ST 66.3 8.6 
Standardized .... 62.6 65.3 —2.7 58.9 68.5 9.6 
East North Central 
EAL ete Ga 8 61.8 ais 4.5 56.4 67.5 11.1 
Standardized .... 60.0 59.8 2 56.8 68.1 Lis 
West North Central 
POT UEA Os TAG in’s 66 57.9 54.1 3.8 56.0 65.4 90.4 
Standardized .... 58.5 58.9 goat A Lv RS 67.8 10.5 
Mountain 
PRCEISA LIES tes ico's. 5 2 61.7 512 10.5 66.2 69.4 3.2 
Standardized .... 61.4 53.8 7.6 65.6 70.3 47 
Pacific 
PCT UALS Waede' es 60.1 49.2 10.9 62.6 69.6 7.0 
Standardized .... 58.9 49.5 9.4 62.8 68.7 5.9 
ForEIGN-BorNn WHITE 
West North Central | 
PA PRVIAV OA rr it?s va 71.9 67.1 48 66.3 77.6 11.3 
Standardized .... 55.3 54.4 Ae) 63.0 77:2 14.2 
NEGRO 
South 
Ottial fas eek ces 58.1 62.5 —44 52.0 63.1 11.1 
Standardized .... 61.5 67.3 —58 52.6 65.4 12.8 


® Minus sign (—) denotes that open country exceeds village. 


population of the United States there are small percentages mar- 
ried, about 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., in the period 15-24 years of 
age. The period 25-54 years of age has the largest percentage mar- 

21 For a full discussion of the effect of age-distribution and sex-ratios on the marital 


condition consult The Cause and Conditions of Marital Status tn the United States, by 
William Rielding Ogburn. This study is still in manuscript. 


174 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


ried for both males and females. From 55 years on, the percentage 
married decreases and the percentage widowed increases, especially 
for females. Accordingly, in the population of the United States, 
any group that has a larger percentage in the age-period 15-24 than 
in the 25-54 age-periods, would have a smaller percentage married 
than would a group having the greatest percentage of its population 
in the age-period 25-54. A population having a larger percentage 
in the very young period, 15-24 years of age, or in the period 55 
years of age and over, would have a smaller percentage of married, 
15 years of age and over, than would a population with the greatest 
percentages in the middle-age periods, 25-54 years of age. 


INFLUENCE OF SEX-RaTIOs 

The open country has a higher ratio of males to 100 females than 
has the village.2?. For the native-born white population of the vil- 
lages, the ratio of males to 100 females varies from 87.4 in the Middle 
Atlantic division to 102.8 in the Mountain division; while for the 
open country, the ratio ranges from 108.4 in the South to 127.1 in 
the Pacific division, This ratio is higher in the villages of the 
Mountain and the Pacific divisions than in the other divisions; but 
the rate of difference between the village and the open country is 
about the same for all divisions except the South. On the other 
hand, the excess of males in the open country will result in a smaller 
percentage of married males than of married females there, as the 
period 15-24 years of age for the foreign-born white in the West 
North Central division so well shows. An increase in the percent- 
age married will reduce the percentage single, unless the increase 
is drawn from the widowed and divorced. Too great a disparity 
between the sexes will reduce the total percentage married, since the 
excess Of one sex over the other will prevent many of the more 
numerous sex from marrying. The foreign-born white element of 
the population has a greater percentage of males than females both 
in the villages and in the open country, in all divisions. The ratios 
vary in the villages from 105.6 males to 100 females in the Middle 
Atlantic division to 170.9 in the Mountain division. The open 
country varies from 137.7 in the Middle Atlantic division to 193.0 
in the Pacific division. This higher ratio of males to 100 females 
is one of the causes of the very high percentages of married females 
for the foreign-born white, especially in the open country, where 
the excess of males is greater. The Negroes, who have about the 
same ratio of males to 100 females as the native-born white, range 
for the villages from a ratio of 88.3 in the Middle Atlantic to 108.9 
in the Pacific division; and for the open country, from 102.2 in the 

22 See Table X. 








APPENDIX C 175 


South to 193.5 in the Pacific. The Mountain division presents too 
small a sample to show for the Negroes the effect of the disparity 
of the sexes on marital condition. But the South, with a higher 
ratio of males to females in the open country than in the village, 
has a greater percentage of males married in the open country. 
Just why this should be so, it is impossible to decide at present. 
These differences in the percentage married, which are partly the 
result of differences in the sex-ratios, as has already been pointed out, 
show that the differences between the village and the open-country 
sex-ratios are fundamental and have far-reaching results upon the 
marital condition of the two classes of population. 


WIDOWED 


The widowed males fifteen years of age and over are more 
numerous in the villages than in the open country. But there are 
some exceptions: that of the Negro in the East North Central 
division, where there are more widowed males in the open country ; 
that of the foreign-born white in the West North Central; that of 
the native-born white in the Mountain division; and that of the 
Negro in the Pacific division. In the case of the Mountain and 
Pacific divisions, the occupational opportunities might draw off the 
unmarried from the villages to the open country; but the opposite 
tendency would seem to be true for the rest of the country. Except 
in the Mountain and Pacific divisions, the migration of widowed 
males is apparently into the villages, especially in the case of those 
of the older age-periods, among whom the greatest number of wid- 
owed is found. Probably both these conditions obtain, and must 
be explained in terms of the particular cultural milieu of the two 
areas. The most striking fact about the widowed is this group’s large 
percentage of females in the period 65 years of age and over. Table 
XXIV presents this data. For native-born white males, the largest 
percentages of widowed 65 years of age and over are in the open 
country, except in the South, where the reverse is true for both the 
native-born white and the Negro. There are larger percentages of 
widowed native-born white females in the villages in all except the 
Mountain and Pacific divisions. The greater development in some 
divisions of agriculture, which tends to draw laborers to the open 
country, and in other divisions of manufacturing, which draws to 
the village, may perhaps account for these differences. The differ- 
ences between the male percentage widowed and that of the female 
must be accounted for in part by the differential death rate, since 
there is a higher death rate for males than for females. 


176 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Whether or not the foreign-born present a different situation 
cannot be stated. Perhaps the open country’s greater percentage of 
widowed females 65 years of age and over, among the foreign-born 
white in the West North Central division, is traceable to the fact 
that the average age is lower in the open country than in the village. 

For the southern Negroes, there is a larger percentage of wid- 
owed males 65 years of age in the village than in the open country. 
A startling fact is that 77 per cent. of all female Negroes 65 years 
of age and over in the southern villages are widowed. An inter- 
esting fact about the South is that it has, for the period 65 years of 
age and over for all nativity classes, higher percentages of widowed 
than any other division. 


TABLE XXIV—WIDOWED, 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY 
NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX 


NATIVE-BorN WHITE 


MALE FEMALE 
Open Open 
Village Country Village Country 
Division % Jo Jo % 
MiddlesAtlantic: ook.) ed seco ne Zoi 28.4 56.9 47.2 
SOME th de eee eae eae 25.3 24.0 60.2 50.8 
East North ‘Centralivoveis a. ee 21.8 26.5 53.7 50.3 
WesteNorth: Gentraliq. vey eo eee PAWS) fgslise Le 50.8 
Motintainy 27ng 1 Oe sce upton e 20.3 29.1 53.6 57.0 
Paine eee. Dube aoa ot ee 18.6 28.5 54.6 5513 
ForEIGN-Born WHITE 
West ‘North: Central tire 2u2.. 3: 20.4 29.6 52.1 LN fe 
NEGRO 
SOUT eee UE en ee Ree Ba.2 24.5 77.0 60.6 
DIVORCED 


The differences between the relative number of divorced in the 
village and in the open country are not very significant. All that 
can be said is that there is a tendency towards larger percentages of 
divorced among males in the open country than in the villages, and 
that the reverse is true for females. This situation may be owing 
to the migration of divorced females to the villages. There is a 
progressive increase from East to West in the percentage of 
divorced. The larger percentage of divorced in the West than in 
the East is probably the result of the more lenient divorce laws of 
the western states. The divorce data are to a large degree unre- 


APPENDIX C 177 


liable because of the unwillingness of divorced persons to report their 
marital status as divorced.” 


SUMMARY OF MARITAL CONDITION 


In the discussion of the marital condition, it has been shown that: 

1. There is a greater per cent. of single males in the open 
country than in the village, except in the case of the southern Ne- 
groes; and that the reverse condition holds for females. 

2. There is a greater per cent. of married males in the villages 
than in the epen country, except in the case of the southern Ne- 
groes; and that the reverse condition holds for females. 


TABLE XXV—ILLITERATES 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY 


WATIVI Ly. 
NATIVvE-Born ForEIGN-Born 
WHITE WHITE NEGRO 
Open Open Open 
Village Country Village Country Village Country 
Divisions % % % % (a) O 
Middle Atlantic ........ a 1.6 10.3 20.4 9.3 8.9 
SSE oRrC RM ran outs Sle ok a3 7.4 OO. Les 25.9 29.7 
Fast North Central .... .8 1.5 4.0 11.2 + 
West North Central .... 8 LZ 4.4 6.0 16.7 17.0 
WRUIEAI TEM core nes oc, fe 4.4 4.8 16.7 t 
SE leg 0 GE 6 6 16.2 10.4 a 


* The per cent. of foreign-born illiterate in the villages of the South exclusive of 
the Southwest is 7.2 per cent.; the per cent. in the Southwest is 47.4, due to the large 
number of Mexicans. 

t Per cent. not shown. Base less than 100. 


3. Holding the age-factor constant tended to diminish the dif- 
ference between the percentage of males married in the village and 
in the open country; and to increase this difference in the case of 
females. 

4. That the open country’s higher ratio of males to 100 females 
in part accounts for the open country having a greater per- 
centage of married females than have the villages. The smaller 
number of males to 100 females in the villages in part accounts for 
the greater percentage of married males in the villages. 

9. The villages have larger percentages of both widowed males 
and widowed females than has the open country. . 

6. The divorce data are too meager to be significant. 


ILLITERACY AND OCCUPATION 24 


Among the native-born white, illiteracy is greater in the open 


23 William .F. Ogburn, The Cause and Conditions of Marital Status in the United 
States. This study is still in manuscript. 
24 See Table XLVI. 


178 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


country than in the village. Wide differences occur only in the 
South and the Mountain divisions. For the foreign-born, the same 
tendencies hold in a general way. The greater illiteracy among the 
foreign-born white of the villages than among those of the open 
country in the South and Pacific divisions, can probably be ac- 
counted for by the concentration of Mexicans in those divisions. 
A tendency for a group of Mexicans to concentrate in the village 
would increase the illiteracy there. Attention is called to the slight 
excess of illiterate Negroes in the open country in the South. While 
the general differences are not so great, there is a trend which results 
in the open country being set off from the village by a higher per- 
centage of illiteracy. 

The two occupations with the highest percentage of males em- 
ployed are manufacturing and trade; but in the Pacific division and 
among southern Negroes, they are manufacturing and agriculture. 
The highest proportion of males in manufacturing, 47.5 per cent., 
is found in the Middle Atlantic division. Of the gainfully em- 
ployed southern white males, 27 per cent. are engaged in manu- 
facturing, the lowest proportion for any division. The Southern 
Negro has 46.1 per cent., and the other divisions from 30 per cent. 
to 38 per cent. The proportion of the gainfully employed males 
engaged in trade varies from 15.3 per cent. to 28.3 per cent. 

The number engaged in agriculture is relatively small, except in 
the Pacific division, where 25.8 per cent. of the gainfully employed 
are in this occupation. The figures for the other divisions vary 
from 8.6 per cent. in the Middle Atlantic to 16.1 per cent. in the 
Mountain division. Of the southern Negroes, 22.6 per cent. are 
engaged in agricultural occupations. 

Females are most heavily concentrated in personal service, pro- 
fessional, and clerical occupations, in the order named. In the 
Middle Atlantic, however, 35.9 per cent. are engaged in manufac- 
turing. The percentage engaged in agriculture is negligible, less 
than 1.0 per cent. for three divisions, 1.2 per cent, for the Mountain, 
and 3.8 per cent. for the Pacific, 2.5 per cent. for the southern white, 
and 8.3 per cent. for the southern Negro. This discussion is suf- 
ficient to show how strikingly non-agricultural the occupational life 
of the villages is. 

On the other hand, the occupation of the open country is pre- 
dominantly agriculture. In certain areas there are large numbers 
engaged in other pursuits, such as mining and lumbering; but for 
the United States as a whole and by divisions, the open-country 
population is essentially a farm population.?® 


25C. J. Galpin and Veda B. Larson, Farm Population of Selected Counties (1924), 
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 


APPENDIX C 179 


Thus there is a striking occupational contrast between the village 
and the open country, which would seem to effect quite differently 
the attitudes and point of view of the village and the open-country 
population. The farmer buys a large proportion of the things he 
wants from the village tradesman. It is the business of the trades- 
man to sell to the farmer at the highest price possible and to buy 
from him at the lowest price. The farmer is essentially interested 
in the basic price, the price he receives for a commodity, but the 
tradesman is interested in the differential, or the difference between 
his cost price and his selling price. The farmer is essentially a 
producer and a consumer, the villager a distributor and a consumer. 
As producers and distributors their interests are quite opposed. 


Conclusion 


It has been shown conclusively that the population classified 
under the category “rural” consists of two separate elements, the 
village and the open country, which vary from division to division 
but always consist of two distinct elements. 





ros att 
ane 
4 


ts iF h ; ’ ) ARN, o : 4 ry mary a r AD. 
eve MDs be Cee te eves he Ye) PO a RL Ch ego a he 


LS aha 












, ‘ ° , 7 
{ : ’ . d Aut , ae. TCP ale BD ae FAD 
; ’ os) Af n : m1 ‘9 or Ney Clg at ‘a De | lay " gus Vay Arar ' 
a . : aS 2 
A, ; 1 VWi< t ‘ —" sf or 
‘ eo oe rua \, alah led aa = . ) a bw ee ; 
\ ' i f, Ve ihre aD rm ‘ee Ua el ths ON ; PAS ey pt Utey 
. Me ‘ 7 ¥ hit 
a ‘ his ios le Pe Pea ee hy poe } hie pig 14 ahs A 
i: } Fae CMA ERY AR SHAS, he) > bh A PALY VET Et aD ge 
7 - ad + q ( 4 id « 
he? ae) t . . a i } 
Vi? tM ACE A tie Mad Papi yh bi a US Sig Ne Be 
i] ¢ } 
j , j ‘ \ ik "is ee ? j 
ij 7 4 
ig he | v ‘fs R 4 ‘ y ‘ K 
‘ as 4 
. ; Kt ‘ ( Jit . . ‘ 1 
> a ‘ 
i io ) 5 mat / yi 
] ¥ = < i 
' ‘ any i 
j \ : es - 
\ , = \ . be a oe 4 | [ 
« ’ 
° 
i p = 
oe , 
| : 
; 4 y Y 
Ad , : } , ' ne " 
. q : 
i jg ‘ 
; “8 ts 
' ih + J hey 2 i" ri p 7 *” iy 
‘ 7 
a a | 
i ; i | 
x is , 
: aw ' 
= ty j 
. | 
f 
' 
Ki Es 
AP ie ~ 
‘ 
' 
7 
4 . 
* — 
s * 
} 
j 
J ; boty 
| Ae 
_ i 
, | 
nh . 
. , 
a 7 a 4 | 
iA i ; 
i) ' i 4 
3 | 
' 
} | ct 
} 
; } \ ; 
ri ' 5 
AN i J } : 
| - a 
ae 
bm ; ; { 
vat 
Dy. ’ 7 
, } 4 sa ‘ 
‘Ad ‘ ? r ry ; i 
ne: - ’ 
j ‘ q . of ‘ 
rae | ‘ e i ’ 


ae DU A ee ta ay 
: PAA u ld ye fi : Ad rns v vera 
f i ig Tae wy <q 9 
‘3 ; ¥ ; ca" fi - 4 ‘i - bal V y, ne, , ? i 
yea 





- SOURCE TABLES 
1 a Bath , . 


: ‘aw py Ve * ” 
hay hy 7 1) fi = 
‘ay 
: Ha ’ 
) 4 
ans 
ih, | 
ni Si 
A od lb 
hf | 
ra si, | A® 
VA J 
aA 4! 
ae 
= 





ih 


1920 Census Rural Population * Six Divisions 


TABLE XXVI—AGE-DISTRIBUTION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX OF THE 
POPULATION 45 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 


Male Female 
W hite W hite 
Age-Periods Native Foreign Native Foreign 
45-54 Born Born Negro Born Born Negro 
Middle Atlantic ...... 241,179 73,067 5,245 223,671 48,459 3,630 
SOUTHER Ac A Stour S| 709,362 35,501 323,194 580,255 20,696 227,621 
East North Central... 386,095 79,790 4,447 341,212 57,251 3932 
West North Central... 299,598 95,206 4,342 249,869 66,484 2,999 
VEC ULILATiV en < che atin « 80,211 28,987 702 54,628 15,423 241 
2 ap hs Le) ARE rg aR et a PM le! cy a 43,391 549 66,898 22,638 270 
55-64 
Middle Atlantic ..... 178,525 41,510 2,410 167,562 29,926 1,739 
Outi se ateee seats 450,380 25.925 157,050 367,841 13,835 110,750 
East North Central.... 280,926 70,829 2,620 242,801 51,484 1,779 
West North Central... 194,349 85,402 2,718 155,086 60,551 1,815 
PEOUMLEIN coe ee ds 49,397 18,999 235 29,633 10,349 104 
PACINO satias'< dee cas ha 63,189 31,376 280 42,215 16,129 132 
65 and over 
Middle Atlantic ...... 151,471 33,114 1,809 152,787 28,743 1,544 
OUCH MT ele tae Snes. « 355,736 21,529 120,753 309,739 tee SS 98,510 
East North Central.... 221,404 81,002 2,750 197,052 64,290 L713 
West North Central... 139,447 84,303 2,543 115,918 67,272 1,873 
IN OIIEALION s earoltos else: 28,121 12,930 161 16,616 8,404 74 
eT Ty 0 a a 44,598 23,768 195 28,792 13,052 94 


* The term “rural,” as used by the United States Census Bureau, includes all popula- 
tion outside of the limits of incorporated places of 2,500 or more inhabitants. The popu- 
lation of incorporated places of less than 2,500 inhabitants and all population outside of 
incorporated places is rural. This study has used in the text the designation “total rural” 
instead of “rural’’ to show each time that it applies to what has been called in the text 
the village and the open country. 


1920 Census Rural Population Six Divisions 


TABLE XXVII—MARITAL CONDITION BY AGE, NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX 
OH THE POPULATION 45 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER 


Male Female 
White W hite 
Age-Periods Native Foreign Native Foreign 
45-54 Born Born Negro Born Born Negro 
TOTAL 
Middle Atlantic ...... 241,179 73,067 5,245 223,671 48,459 3,630 
SGUelibmetis eke lak bl a cas 709,362 35,501 323,194 580,255 20,696 227,621 
East North Central.... 386,095 79,790 4,447 341,212 S720 2,932 
West North Central... 299,598 95,206 4,342 249,869 66,484 2,999 
DA MTT ITE We cc. o ccaxb aia G's 80,211 28,987 702 54,628 15,423 241 
POCUNCir et sony ons wees) 920708 43,391 549 66,898 22,638 270 
SINGLE 
Middle Atlantic ...... 33,050 8,819 826 24,834 2,937 344 
SOULE ee eee ee a 50,957 4,653 15,378 36,676 1,006 8,544 
East North Central.... 47,677 10,802 761 27,672 2,366 154 
West North Central... 36,925 14,270 598 16,383 2,546 157 
Mountain YS awies cc cae 123325 6,444 207 2,051 403 14 
RCRA Sa atew cane a6 18,818 11,661 138 3,999 995 10 


183 


184 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XXVII (Continued) 


Male 
W hite 
Age-Periods Native Foreign 
45-54 Born Born 
MARRIED 
Middle Atlantic ...... 193,819 60,183 
DOUtH WT. agus eae 614,747 28,189 
East North Central.... 315,126 64,362 
West North Central... 244,997 75,596 
Mountaintene.: slave o ae 61,107 20,327 
Pacifici. sis kis tele aereivers 66,264 28,735 
WIDOWED 
Middle Atlantic ...... 12,544 3,733 
DOLMEH MA at UG eee ee 39,675 2,389 
East North Central.... 18,702 3,921 
West North Central... 14,362 4,631 
Mountain aie sk fates 5,107 1,748 
PACE IN 2 es ace ee kt 5,043 2,288 
Divorcep 
Middle Atlantic ...... 1,480 £55 
SOUEM MEd eloeiacmteere Cae 3,164 156 
East North Central.... 4,026 542 
West North Central... 2,830 537 
MOUHtAIn ee. aces ole 1533 385 
Pacilicmau ys css wleeie gid 2550 590 
Male 
White 
Age-Periods Native Foreign 
55-64 Born Born 
ToTaL 
Middle Atlantic ...... 178,525 41,510 
SOUtH Urea siete ache ae 450,380 23,923 
East North Central.... 280,926 70,829 
West North Central .. 194,349 85,402 
Mountatnole cron. hee 49,397 18,999 
Pacihe§ Gecnekietinles eevee 63,189 31,376 
SINGLE 
Middle Atlantic ...... 20,015 4,369 
SOUth tesyaeeen woe 27,281 2,470 
East North Central.... 28,288 7,582 
West North Central... 18,461 9257 
Mountains 2a eee 7,016 3,938 
PACIRGO, FSA wattle coos 11,052 7,450 
MarRIED 
Middle Atlantic ...... 138,670 32,438 
Soweto wk cee enets 372,162 18,371 
East North Central.... 221,768 55,614 
West North Central .. 154,879 67,240 
Mountaincet sce ane: 35,242 12,570 
Parle aaye as sole States 43,432 20,131 
WIDOWED 
Middle Atlantic ...... 18,547 4,470 
South weer ae eee 47,909 2,867 
East North Central.... 27,110 6,899 
West North Central... 18,465 8,151 
Mountain... 04 1. oo 5,945 2121 
PACIC OSs sae eer ens 6,801 3,083 
Divorcep 
Middle Atlantic ...... 1,021 165 
South moos uied Ae ae 2,364 157 
East North Central.... 3,264 578 
West North Central... 2,184 594 
Mountéin 1%. ¢iuee. 1,108 316 
Pacificnm crved soca 1,756 615 


Negro 


Female 
W hite 
Native Foreign 
Born Born 
176,176 39,757 
468,549 16,652 
282,049 49,308 
209,506 57,180 
45,499 12,626 
55,031 18,958 
21,309 5,592 
72,621 2,913 
28,284 Dele 
21,747 6,334 
6,210 2,240 
6,706 2,442 
1,142 103 
2,684 95 
2,843 282 
1,996 347 
729 128 
1,099 218 
Female 
White 
Native Foreign 
Born Born 
167,562 29,926 
367,841 13,835 
242,801 51,484 
155,086 60,551 
29,633 10,349 
42,215 16,129 
17,496 1,662 
23,554 535 
17,936 1,821 
8,176 1,863 
834 264 
2,038 627 
113,370 20,783 
246,733 9,598 
174,423 38,629 
113,144 45,638 
20,694 6,929 
29,710 11,603 
35,873 7,369 
95,181 3,603 
48,046 10,672 
32,240 12,616 
7,692 3,049 
9,744 3,706 
603 61 
1,741 75 
1,985 286 
1,260 339 
374 95 
666 168 


Negro 


Age-Periods 
65 and over 
TOTAL 
Middle Atlantic 
SOUL MM ees Thera ee 
East North Central.... 
West North Central... 
Mountain 
Pacific 


eererereore eo eeeere 


SINGLE 
Middle Atlantic 
ASYGLER At Freie re ot tenth 
East North Central.... 
West North Central... 
Mountain 
Pacific 


eee er eee esesn 


eoereerererererereere 


MarriepD 
Middle Atlantic 
SOULE pote eaaleleteiste ces 
East North Central.... 
West North Central... 
Mountain 
(Paciic ureters 


WIpDowED 
Middle Atlantic 
OUCH Mets Marae se aidie aes < 
East North Central.... 
West North Central... 
Mountain 
iPACiiG) .\6 


eeeceeoe 


eoeereeeeeee 


Divorcep 
Middle Atlantic 
South 
East North Central.... 
West North Central... 
VEO tiaba trimer satay orcrs cre 
Paci y dss ae 


eeeeee 


ooo ee eer eee eeee 


1920 Census 


SOURCE TABLES 


TABLE XXVII (Continued) 


Male 
W hite 
Native Foreign 

Born Born Negro 
151,471 33,114 1,809 
355,736 21,5295 1205753 
221,404 81,002 2,750 
139,447 84,303 2,543 
28,121 12,930 161 
44,598 23,768 195 
12,499 2,965 226 
17,562 1,904 4,375 
16,560 6,408 301 
9,017 5,852 264 
3,603 2,168 40 
6,175 4,788 52 
96,985 19,844 976 
249,648 13,458 83,757 
146,225 5Oj313 1,476 
95,274 Doel OZ 1,466 
16,465 7,170 67 
25,838 12,666 79 
41,032 10:09 0m 587 
86,160 5,956 31,529 
55,868 Ppa aya) 914 
33°325 22,564 750 
7,350 Sone 51 
11,242 5,696 58 
597 62 8 
1,529 106 742 
PA OS 498 47 
1,369 502 41 
627 213 2 
1,012 430 5 


33 Incorporated Villages 


185 

Female 

White 

Native Foreign 
Born Born Negro 
152,787 28,743 1,544 
309,739 13,513 98,510 
197,052 64,290 1 7L3 
115,918 67,272 1,873 
16,616 8,404 74 
28,792 13,052 94 
15,005 1,623 147 
23,239 574 VAG. 
12,146 2,158 92 
4,536 1,818 87 
516 170 5 
1,026 396 6 
58,333 10,389 454 
WAS S 7, 5,094 Shales ysis: 
82,288 25,987 580 
50,543 29,255 671 
6,657 3,074 30 
11,614 5,354 24 
78,771 16,597 936 
162,763 7,742 62,468 
101,094 35,728 1,024 
BO cove arss. 949 1,088 
9,255 5,094 38 
15,864 7,156 63 
335 32 3 
986 47 442 
962 Cru7) 8 
597 sh 20 
141 49 0 
229 100 1 


Middle Atlantic Division 


TABLE XXVIII—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY 


Age-Periods 


NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
Total 


55-64 
65 and over 
Unknown 


eer ewes ereerene 


oe eee eee eee esos 


eee ee eee eee eee 


ee 


eee eeere eres eeee 


eer eee rere eee ne 


erereeeee 


eoeoeeeer eer ee 


NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX 


Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
-- 34,366 16,026 46.6 18,340 53.4 
ede, 7 46 1,402 4.1 1,344 3.9 
«>» 5,449 2,680 7.8 2,769 8.1 
Ss OO 2,368 6.9 2,792 8.1 
-. 4,564 2,092 6.1 2,472 Of 
Lea 45318 2,102 6.1 2,416 7.0 
~. 4,451 2,044 5.9 2,407 7.0 
ato). OD9 1,670 4.9 1,989 5.8 
ee 4796 1,656 4.8 2,140 6.2 
oe 23 12 bg 11 he 


186 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XXVIII (Continued) 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
DOtal eh, 42 ts ee heehee: 1,626 835 Lye’ 791 48.7 

Darden iS Make came eens 6 —_— —_ 6 4 
Pm LA Mena ian. eee 40 29 1.8 11 7 
15274 ae Be eee ee 99 55 3.4 44 te | 
2554 a. Se nts ee aa ae 208 109 6.7 99 6.1 
SSA Ce Sab, Bos 274 129 7.9 145 8.9 
ASSAY ei cc a e aa 303 154 D5 149 9.2 
5 5=64 Te nies te 278 149 9.2 129 7.9 
65. Cand’ “Gverece co soeet 417 209 12.8 208 12.8 
Unknown hasaeer ces ee 1 1 4 — ao 

NEGRO 

LEGUALIAS a oie SIE ice cree sR inode 273 128 46.9 145 53.1 

Linderc Shia eel cteehs eee. 31 11 4.0 20 vee: 
Erica [pm a Ves ear OY Phe ees Sore 60 29 10.6 31 11.4 
D524 Rian hste exe crete ete ae 37 18 6.6 19 7.0 
PANEL SD 1 ake EATEN A. retard nan ay 14 bee Z3 8.4 
SOS ere ay, ec alee ease 32 : 15 5.4 17 6.2 
45 =54 Med atnsiek ee Tee 34 21 Ged. 13 4.7 
eas of NARS PAN Woy 4 5 ee 16 8 2.9 8 23 
GhRanahovenw te ea. 24 12, 4.5 12 4.5 
Unknown moment 2 -- “ 2 a7. 


* Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


1920 Census 33 Incorporated Villages Middle Atlantic Division 


TABLE XXIX—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
Totalyrce oss dee 11,944 3,253 2 2 7,892 66.1 743 6.2 48 4 
LO 24 ae oa stele 2,368 1,944 82.1 413 17.4 5 a2 1 ft 
D534 eee 2,092 576 £75 1,478 70.6 29 1.4 8 4 
354 4a 2,102 297 14.1 1,742 82.9 46 Ze 17 8 
4554 liek te 2,044 213 10.4 M722 84.2 95 4.6 13 6 
S5=64 reieratas 1,670 122 73 1,388 83.1 152 9.1 7 4 
65 and over.. 1,656 97 5.8 1,142 69.0 415 25.1 Z eal 
Unknown ... 12 4 7. 7 T 1 7 —_-_ — 
FoREIGN-BORN WHITE 
Aiba wos ei wales» 806 145 18.0 558 69.2 102 12:7 — — 
De Ae ss etacs 55 43 7 12 T — Ae: a pat 
25=34 i eee ens 109 37 33.9 70 64.2 2 1.8 — — 
BAA ates ete 129 24 18.6 102 79.1 3 O05 — — 
ABSA elu owes 154 1¢ 9.1 127 82.5 13 8.4 — — 
D5 =64 025 sues: 149 10 6.7 126 84.6 13 8.7 — — 
65 and over.. 209 16 tif 121 57.9 71 34.0 — — 
Unknown ... 1 1 f — — — — ihe Be 
NEGRO 
LGtAL en Akh ee 88 30 T 50 tT 8 Tt — —_ 
P5=a24 ee eae 18 16 T 2 Tf —_ —_— — — 
BOKD 4 ois eisistow 14 5 T 9 Tt — —_ — — 
TS WANED Shady 15 1 t 12 t 2 t Ubi See 
Ay Be Lai ty pil ZA 5 T 14 T 2, ny — eee 
55-64 Woes eve 8 2 Tt 6 Tt ae — -- ~ 
65 and over.. 12 1 T 7 7 4 t we fd 


Unknown ... — 


* Total includes pores whose marital condition was not reported. 
+ Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 
¢ Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


SOURCE TABLES © 187 


1920 Census 33 Incorporated Villages Middle Atlantic Division 


TABLE XXX—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE- 
PERIODS, NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
AW 9 Lge rae to 14,228 3,890 27.3 7,974 56.1 2,274 16.0 69 aS 
15-24). 4 es 2,792 2,056 73.6 716 25.6 12 4 6 az. 
HBA Lobe. shane 2,472 661 26.7 Neo! 70.1 62 25 13 set 
35-44 ..... 2,416 377 15.6 1,869 77.4 145 6.0 a3 1:0 
A= 54s. stele 2,407 333 13.8 1,764 PASTS) 287 11.9 17 of 
Be =O4 hehe oc 1,989 233 1 by 1,196 60.1 550 27.6 5 a8 
65 and over 2,140 226 10.5 691 82.3 L217 56.9 bs) 2 
Unknown... 11 4 i 5 — 1 t _-_ — 
ForEIGN-BORN WHITE 
SD OCA arevcters! ste 774 71 9.2 498 64.3 203 26.2 —_— — 
15-24 . 44 27 T 17 T — — — — 
OSH eee as 99 8 T 85 ci 6 T = = 
Soe © ier 145 8 Seo 126 86.9 lal 7.6 — — 
PY tape 149 10 6.7 120 80.5 18 12.0 — 
564 2.0 oe 129 9 7.0 92 fps 28 led, — “= 
65 and over 208 9 4.3 58 27.9 140 67.3 — — 
Unknown... _— — _ —_ — — — — —_ 
NEGRO 
gS ook Fae 94 35 T 47 T 12 tT — — 
M24 lis ins 19 13 T 6 T — — —- — 
PAY. UP Pea 23 9 Tt 14 tT == — — — 
eS | eee 17 7 T 9 Tt 1 rT — — 
45-54 .....- 13 1 T 10 T Be 7 — — 
S5=64 sys 8 2 T 4 he 2 T -_- — 
65 and over 12 3 7 3 T 6 T a — 
Unknown .. 2 — -— 1 T 1 5 —_- — 
* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
+ Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 
1920 Census 37 Incorporated Villages Southern Division 


TABLE XXXI—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY NATIVITY, 
COLOR AND SEX 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
Dota Wares otsclaele ¢ << 34,249 16,604 48.5 17,645 S15 
Wtidene Sin nese cee 3,628 1,855 5.4 De Lio 52 
Sa) cvareye si evere 7,424 3,641 10.6 3,783 TO 
gC 7. ee Age HORE 2,808 8.2 3,439 10.0 
me EM avd woe tel sles « 5,224 2,465 Thay 2,759 8.1 
IS eae J) Sy caaPengene os 4,351 ZA, 6.3 2,194 6.4 
SDA eka vuaue ate eee Breas 1,626 4.7 1,607 4.7 
SS =O 4c te wie eleven ates 2,243 1,142 3.4 1,101 Se3 
O5eandsoveti...2)) 1,090 876 2.6 974 2.8 
uknown .s 5. 49 34 ot 15 #, 
FoREIGN-BORN WHITE 
Wotalieca ss aie Gov es 782 429 54.9 353 45.1 
Linderiesine ele, s «6 10 4 ae 6 Vi 
Sa lars ta eleiets sono . 82 44 5.6 38 4.9 
5 Ne I ea 129 67 8.6 62 7,9 
Bom SA ers ¢ chiens 1,4 158 83 10.6 75 9.6 
Sha AA WE o 6, vie eieie 159 82 10.5 77 9.8 
A= GA ciel o-shera si 315 126 84 10.8 42 5.4 
Beets hs ave ew Ae 56 31 4.0 25 332 
GSmeand Oven, ««.< 62 34 4.3 28 3.6 


| 
| 
| 


Dnknowny vee052 > —_ — 


188 


Age-Periods 


ee oes ereeves 
eereeree 
eee eres ses 
coer er eseee 
ee a ry 
cee eter eee 
eoesrececvece 


eee eee eee 


6s and ‘ovet... 
Unknown 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Total 


TABLE XXXI (Continued) 


Number 


12,659 
1,317 
2,980 
2,744 
1:935 
1,529 
1,069 

520 
457 
108 


Male 
Number Per Cent. 
6,016 47.5 

676 ae 
1,461 TS 
1,210 9.6 

898 GA 

683 5.4 

595 4.7 

Zo 1.8 

ZS ue #/ 

49 4 


* Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


1920 Census 


37 Incorporated Villages 


Female 
Per Cent. 


Number 


6,643 
641 
1,519 
1,534 
1,037 
846 
474 
289 
244 
59 


ur 


ee Ree Oh Oe BS Pa BO 


jak ak 
MowuUadpkoHN 


Southern Division 


TABLE XXXII—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single 
Num- Num- Per 
ber ber Cent, 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
DOtal tweet 11,108 3,640 32.8 
1b =24 i Anas 2,808 2,398 85.4 
25-345 i ee 2,465 748 30.3 
35=44 Deters PRE NG / 244 11.3 
S55 4a ety. 1,626 123 7.6 
5564) Wea. 1,142 67 5.9 
65 and over. 876 43 4.9 
Unknown 34 17, T 
FoREIGN-BORN WHITE 
Ota) greta hues 382 91 23.8 
W524 Wile cn one 68 54 t 
25-34. ees cies 83 18 T 
35—44' 225022 82 6 Tt 
45-5 AAS eee 84 8 T 
55-64-00. coke 31 4 e 
65 and over. 34 1 fT 
Unknown .. — es — 
NEGRO 
otal olen 6 oa 3,879 1,341 34.6 
VOR 24 Pee 1,210 907 75.0 
VARY. RIE eS 898 253 25.9 
B5K44 re wea: 683 99 14.5 
45-54 ...... 595 57 9.6 
ORT oy Eee a) Bok 11 4.8 
65 and over. 213 9 4.2 
Unknown 49 25 Tt 


* Total includes 
f Per cent, not 


Married 
Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
6,920 62.3 
396 14.1 
1,677 68.1 
1,836 85.1 
1,419 87.3 
971 85.0 
609 69.5 
12 T 
262 68.6 
10K T 
61 3 
74 tT 
69 T 
23 tT 
Le T 
2252 58.1 
286 23.6 
625 69.6 
535 78.3 
479 80.5 
176 76.2 
129 60.6 
22 T 


Widowed 

Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
512 4.6 
6 ihe 
Si 1.3 
Ties 3.3 
82 5.0 
97 8.5 
222 25.3 
2 Tt 
28 7:3 
4 tT 

2 T 

7 £ 

4 ij 
11 T 
247 6.4 
4 a: 
29 3.2 
45 6.5 
53 8.9 
40 172 
75 35.2 
1 T 


persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
shown, base less than 100. 


Divorced 
Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
24 2 
6 fs 
7 wa 
3 “pi 
1 mi | 
5 4 
2 Aye 
13 3 
i ih 
2 ca 
3 4 
4 ys 
2 9 
1 T 


1920 Census 


SOURCE TABLES 


37 Incorporated Villages 


189 


Southern Division 


TABLE XXXITI—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE- 
PERIODS, NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * 
Num- 

ber 

NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
PLO PANEE . Weva'e ci 12,091 
pate hee 6 i acs 3,439 
ZO=O4 ht oe 2,759 
ERG Ne ef ove 2,194 
45-54 ..... 1,607 
S504) 66 axe 1,101 
65 and over 974 
Unknown 17 


FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 


SOLAN Sates ste< 309 
15249. es 6 62 
Opes Ae. Ve vnle le 75 
35-44 ..... ah 
A= SA cece 42 
B52 64 0s eas 25 
65 and over 28 
Unknown... — 

NEGRO 

i Dg ee 4,483 
15 =248 Se 3 1,534 
25-34 . 1037, 
35-44 ..... 846 
CACY: Ne 474 
HOOF Gee cas 289 
65 and over 244 
Unknown 59 


Single Married 

Num- Per Num- Per 
ber Cent. ber Cent. 
3,559 29.4 6,971 S74 
2,386 69.4 1,014 29.5 
20.4 2,089 hse | 

11.9 1,766 80.5 

10.1 1,170 72.8 

8.8 631 B7aS 

8.6 294 30.2 

7 T 7 T 

49 15.9 206 66.6 

27 T 32 tT 

8 T 63 T 

8 T 61 Tt 

4 T 30 ie 

2 T 12 t 

— — 8 Tt 
T2075 28.4 230 52.0 
874 57.0 604 39.4 
18.7 723 69.7 

Tet 585 69.1 

9.3 262 aoe 

7.6 102 ae 

4.9 39 16.0 

27 < 15 T 


Widowed Divorced 

Num- Per Num- Per 
ber Cent. ber Cent. 

1,491 12.3 4} 3 
29 8 3 Ail 
87 3:2 15 oe 
152 6.9 12 As. 
267 16.6 6 4 
367 33.3 3 23 
586 60.2 2 a2 
3 T SSS = 

Ry 16.8 1 “Oo 
2 :j — —= 

3 Tt 1 T 
8 T ca == 
8 T — —- 

11 T — — 
20 T os == 
830 18.5 oe of 
45 2.9 3 ee 
105 10.1 13 183 
150 1747 9 11 
164 34.6 4 8 
161 SGV ie Al 
188 77.0 1 4 
17 T = = 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
{t Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


1920 Census 


22 Incorporated Villages 


East North Central Division 


TABLE XXXIV—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY NATIVITY, 


Age-Periods Total 
Number 

NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
EPotal maierccts Girone ese. « 28,188 
RGIMGEENS 305 ate & oe & 2,617 
Sea Aa go: oie fore 5 5,359 
eA es) Mei ayia 4,776 
PAERY, V Aled Bie eae 3,963 
iS ae oases lai ah yer alos 3,373 
TST DAs ae ee 3,182 
SSEGO4 wet tAce meais'e-o 2,559 
65 and over... 2,299 
Wnknown) ett. 60 

FoREIGN-BORN WHITE 
ALN te totes Sige eree 2,929 
(eset Oty eee 1 
Saad Ae le tiekate ts ane 46 
ES = 24 eae ete oes 75 
Zea AM rs eke ae 261 
SO—AGihis cock os 60s 442 
MR DAS wi oladia ning ws 544 
je ey PN A 635 
G5 *.and) Over... 920 
Unknown ...... 5 


COLOR AND SEX 


Male 
Number Per Cent. 
13,361 47.4 
1,330 4.7 
2,656 9.5 
PRY 7.5 
1,837 6.5 
1,546 55 
1,552 5S 
1,206 4.3 
1,085 3.8 
32 + 
1,545 52.7 
1 * 
24 8 
34 ic 
144 4.9 
231 7.9 
306 10.4 
310 10.6 
490 16.7 
5 iy 


Female 
Number Per Cent. 
14,827 52.6 
1,287 4.6 
2,703 9.6 
2,659 9.4 
2,126 7.5 
1,827 6.5 
1,630 5.8 
353 4.8 
1,214 4.3 
28 Al 
1,384 47.3 
ee 8 
41 1.4 
117 4.0 
211 wee 
238 8.1 
325 5 | 
430 14.7 


| : 


190 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XXXIV (Continued) 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NEGRO 
Ropal pee tet sik cts sere 107 51 47.7 56 52s 
Vader? sh eof e a: Y 6 4 3.8 2 1.9 
fel, RY eipaiopah a 7A 20 7 6.5 13 12.1 
LOS AA ee epee 18 7 6.5 11 10.3 
25S a slits Cee ss 16 9 8.4 7 6.5 
Son: Cs We AR ih See Zi 12 0 Wy LY, 15 14.0 
7: Notrke 2. ERR sh 9 6 5.6 3 2.8 
55-64 te. eh cletiee aes 5 a 1.9 3 2.8 
6d) vand) ovens. 6 4 3.8 2 1.9 
Wuknowl abies « — _ —_ — ao 


* Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


1920 Census 22 Incorporated Villages East North Central Division 


TABLE XXXV—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
ERO Pal\weercemuortn 9375 3,019 3262 5,795 61.8 486 5:2 63 7 
15 S24 Fire et Le lien 1,871 88.4 238 Re. a wh 4 2 
25-34 eee 1,837 570 31.0 £2225 66.6 29 1.6 13 7 
B5S4 4 os die 1,546 238 15.4 1,262 81.6 35 ORR 10 6 
A= 54) BE Seueae 1552 174 2 1,288 83.0 68 4.4 21 1.4 
55640 12 ae 1,206 107 8.9 976 80.9 113 9.4 10 8 
65 and over. 1,085 53 4.9 793 73.0 236 21.8 2 3 
Unknown ... 32 6 t 13 t 2 T 2 T 
FoREIGN-BORN WHITE 
MOtal@ue Adiga: 1,520 165 10.8 1,189 78.2 159 10.5 7 BS 
W5=245 Se oe. 34 26 i 8 Tt se a ate — 
Pic oe CAN a 144 39 Bik 103 7155 i 1.4 — — 
Oos44a lL AGAs PRM 30 13.0 196 84.8 Wn 2.2 — —_— 
A554 es ie 306 41 13.4 245 80.1 L7 55 3 1.0 
SH O4 eG nos 310 WZ 3.9 270 87.1 25 8.1 3 9 
65 and over. 490 17 335 362 73.9 110 22.4 1 a2 
Unknown ... 5 — _- 5 T —_ — _ — 
NEGRO 
Dotalors $4. % eet 40 10 T 27 T 2 7 1 T 
L522 4 a, Pts 7 5 T 1 T —_— — 1 Tt 
Zor SALT Pls ole ers 9 4 T is T —- — —- = 
Soma sos icles 12 1 7 11 7 _- — — — 
Me Says ea 6 -— a 6 iT — — — -— 
B5=—640 2. be 2 — — 1 T 1 Tt — —= 
65 and over. 4 — —- 3 fT 1 4 a _— 


Unknown 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
{7 Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


SOURCE TABLES 191 


1920 Census 22 Incorporated Villages East North Central Division 


TABLE XXXVI—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE- 
PERIODS, NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
EP GiAL Mee totes oe 10,837 3,241 29.9 6,108 56.4 1,367 12.6 105 1.0 
95-24e7 SSS. 2,659 2,042 76.8 596 22.4 10 4 6 2 
25-34 wees 2,126 552 26.0 1,498 70.5 55 ae 19 9 
35-44 ..... 1,827 271 14.8 1,432 78.4 87 4.8 35 1.9 
45-54 ..... 1,630 209 12.8 1,181 725 PMN Pe 13.0 27 1.6 
55-64 ..... teaos 109 8.1 882 65.2 347 25.6 15 1.1 
65 and over 1,214 54 4.4 504 41.5 652 S387, 3 «2 
Unknown... 28 4 7 15 tT 4 T —_ —_ 
ForREIGN-BORN WHITE 
PPota lite steno 1,362 89 6.5 895 65.7 371 27.2 6 4 
De 2 4 er cre 41 27 ; 14 T ae = — — 
25=340 eae nhil7/ 14 12.0 100 85.5 3 2 -- — 
OKA MSc s.8 3 211 13 6.2 187 88.6 10 4.7 = — 
45=54) ..... 238 14 5.8 186 78.3 37 LES 1 4 
OS D4 ws ws. 00s 325 9 2.8 226 69.5 86 26.5 4 P22 
65 and over 430 12 2.8 182 42.3 235 54.7 1 ye 
Unknown... — — _— — — —_— —_— — _— 
NEGRO 
PCA is oss 41 10 Tf 27 7 4 tT — —_ 
P5=24u ees 2% 11 9 7 2 7 = aS = == 
2504. oe tise 7 — — 6 T 1 Tf = = 
BH 4 ee seins 15 1 T 12 7 Z ¥ aod => 
45-54 ..... 3 — — 3 hf —~ —_ —_— —_ 
Bee. sass 3 —_ — 3 T — —_ — — 
65 and over 2 — — 1 x 1 Tt — — 
Unknown... — — _— — aS —— —— =< 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
{ Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 
1920 Census 38 Incorporated Villages West North Central Division 


TABLE XXXVII—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY NATIVITY, 
COLOR AND SEX 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
prOta lutte: she eiatets: s ote - 40,048 19,413 48.5 20,635 S155 
Winder? 5! Poo. s.s 3,965 1,984 4.9 1,981 4.9 
= TAg tc sistance 6 8,210 4,071 10.2 4,140 10.3 
TSC 4w ree ss 7.555 3,483 8.7 4,072 10.2 
RO eis) sides caveats 5,877 2,760 6.9 Orley, 7.8 
SOKA AUeg tee len cts ce 4,881 2,311 5.8 2,570 6.4 
Be SATs ea eke es 3,868 1,963 4.9 1,905 4.8 
B= 64 Laaicte che sles 6 2,991 1,509 3.8 1,482 3.7 
65 and over..... 2,574 1,270 Sve 1,304 3.3 
NKR O WI te suis o's 126 62 el 64 Au 
ForEIGN-BORN WHITE 
Ah a a 5,423 2,944 54.3 2,479 45.7 
Wnderaswesee sc « 16 10 2 6 ay] 
an Ate sieve oecsiare: 4 99 56 1.0 43 8 
Dead he se hha ys: be 193 94 1.7 99 1.8 
OO = SAUP. sic sb bees « 505 299 5e5 206 3.8 
SHA eS als eoanei cet 809 432 8.0 377 7.0 
BabA Ate a tere Bie bate 1,093 594 11.0 499 9.2 
ES Sy ee ee ee 2155 617 11.4 538 9.9 
65. and ‘over..... 1,538 834 15.4 704 13.0 
Unknown s..... 15 8 al 7 el 


192 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XXXVII (Continued) 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NEGRO 
AVERT: (Showin dy oteul eles 347 180 51.9 167 48.1 
Under <5. <x be 34 24 6.9 10 2.9 
OLA ee a tes 71 38 11.0 33 9.5 
15 2EM ees is cuareate 51 19 5.5 32 9.2 
ZOmS Se aig esate a iatets 40 17 4.9 23 6.6 
OSA A sce ten he 49 24 6.9 25 7.3 
45-54, oa a. 36 18 5.2 18 5.2 
SO-GA sues baa 37 24 6.9 hes KT 
65 and over..... 27 14 4.0 13 $7. 
Unknown ...... 2 2 6 — — 
1920 Census 38 Incorporated Villages West North Central Division 


TABLE XXXVIII—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE- 
PERIODS, NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
aL PtAL Ae eos cated 13,358 4,872 36.5 7,738 57.9 650 4.9 71 Ph. 
VDE 24 cre 3,483 3,102 89.1 370 10.6 4 ait 1 i 
CoO 4 are fee 2,760 960 34.8 1,739 63.0 51 1.8 8 ic 
3544 eas aro 364 15.8 1,872 81.0 59 2.6 16 6 
ABH 54 ead g's 1,963 250 2e7) Al 80.0 121 6.2 20 1.0 
55-64 ss .dec5 1,509 120 8.0 1,228 81.4 143 9.5 16 1.1 
65 and over. 1,270 50 3.9 OR 7 a.Bi toes 21.3 9 e 
Unknown ... 62 26 T 21 T 1 T 1 T 
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
Total Wo inks es 2,878 545 18.9 2,069 71.9 251 8.7 9 3 
jE Ts ee 94 78 ne 15 T —_ 1 ft 
25-34 Rathtas 299 135 45.2 158 52.8 6 2.0 oo _ 
35-44 oe. 432 115 26.6 309 71.6 7 1.6 1 2 
45-54 ...... 594 101 17.0 466 78.4 23 3.9 4 4 
55-64 ieee alos 617 80 13.0 490 79.4 44 he | 2 a) 
65 and over. 834 34 4.1 626 75.0 170 20.4 1 ai! 
Unknown ... 8 2 T 5 Tf 1 i = a 
NEGRO 
Otahone s eatauree 118 30 25.4 73 61.9 11 9.3 3 2.5 
B24 ie sep aie 19 13 T 6 7 _ — — —_ 
Bb 4 elie ke 17 2 T 11 T 3 T 1 s 
eet Bakar 24 8 T 15 7 — —- 1 T 
AS~54) 3 OC ia 18 3 fT 12 T 3 T —- — 
SSO Le ering 24 3 fT 20 T —_ —_ 1 7 
65 and over. 14 — — 9 T 5 T — — 
Unknown ... 2 1 Tt _ —_ — a — _- 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 
t Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


SOURCE TABLES 193 


1920 Census 38 Incorporated Villages West North Central Division 


TABLE XXXIX—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE- 
PERIODS, NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
PRA ass) ok 14,514 4,689 4V 4 8,132 56.0 1,564 10.8 107 7) 
15-24 ..... 4,072 3,149 77.3 876 21.5 28 MY 14 3 
PIR WANE ree Shae 882 28.3 2,116 67.9 95 3.0 20 6 
35-44 ..... 2,570 346 1525 2,052 79.8 140 5.4 30 1.2 
45-54 2.055 1,905 179 9.4 1,489 78.2 219 Les 16 8 
55—64 ..... 1,482 69 4.7 1,019 68.7 373 25.2 20 1.3 
65 and over 1,304 37 2.8 560 42.9 700 5337 5 4 
Unknown .. 64 27 T 20 Tf 9 7 2 i 
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
Ota tts. cess 2,430 204 8.4 1,612 66.3 599 24.7 12 ao 
1524) oo vaes 99 74 T 25 T — — — — 
2504, niece 206 30 14.6 170 82.5 6 2.9 —- aa 
35-44 ..... Rye) 35 9.3 312 82.8 28 7.4 2 5 
Mae fs pia es 499 37 7.4 393 78.8 66 13.2 3 6 
Bie 4 be a6 6% 538 17 oee 390 Tip is 125 Z3ee 5 9 
65 and over 704 al 1.6 322 45.7 367 SVs 2 Ss! 
Unknown .. 7 —- -- —_— os 7 7 — — 
NEGRO 
OAL. asus bs d 124 30 24.2 75 60.5 17 13.7 2 1.6 
pose eae 32 19 Tt il 7 1 T 1 T 
25-34 .. 23 7 T 16 T —_ —_ — — 
35-44 1.20. 25 2 7 au 7 2 T _ — 
: en. Saree 18 —_ — 15 5 2 T 1 T 
BS—64 | 6.65 13 1 t 8 7 4 okt (eee a ie 
65 and over 13 1 1 4 7 8 5 — fair) 
Unknown .. —_ _— — see —- —— = ee oe 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
¥ Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


1920 Census 7 Incorporated Villages Mountain Division 


TABLE XL—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY NATIVITY, 
COLOR AND SEX 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
PP ORAL ass BAW S vin Salar 4,630 50.7 4,499 49.3 
EE dae are eee ee | 545 6.0 558 6.1 
ied ©, AVS ae Ai cae Se | 991 10.8 986 10.8 
eee ae tech aes 1,573 755 8.3 818 9.0 
2 BAP: aa 1,561 747 8.2 814 8.9 
he, Dea bP OR ae 1,210 631 6.9 579 6.3 
Aas chelate 6 G06 830 468 oval 362 4.0 
D564 Wha cis cies son 506 281 ook 225 Zs5 
657and) over. ss 353 202 fae 151 ey 
HINO WwIlw ris sco) 16 10 Bit 6 al 
TOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
SOCAL ba cteis aatece ey: ais 3 615 388 63.1 227 36.9 
INGdet aw seis coe 1 1 os pase nee 
mAs wele cs 6s 17 is ak 4 ¥) 
Dare Pars wees es ecale 46 22 3.6 24 3.9 
PACES: 1s A a 117 81 13.2 36 5.9 
Silanes oo a's) 4's 0 6 145 88 14.3 57 9.3 
A ms SAM eho 'a.0ie oe, es 126 78 1 eae 48 7h 
Db =O41 1 cpa deca sisie's 90 60 9.8 30 4.9 
65 and over....-; 72 44 7:2 28 4.6 
URED OWN 6 s\s's.5 1 1 ‘2 — —_— 


194 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XL (Continued) 


Age-Periods Total Male Female 
Number Number Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
NEGRO 
PLOtAlA we cles ies ites ove ZZ 20 ~J 2 ey 
Wider $5 Pauses: 3 3 o — — 
b= 1AM le tebe stele 1 1 bs — — 
pi ne rare AR ad 6 6 * = me 
25O-GLA ATR tee ae 4 3 ‘=f 1 * 
Se Penna a Geet 3 4 4 * == — 
B5=54 0. Ji ee es ae — — — — —_ 
SS re t/t. a ee ee 2 2 * ee a 
65" and over... < 2 1 wd 1 * 
Whinowheevcoes. — cant a iho — 


* Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


> 


1920 Census 7 Incorporated Villages Mountain Division 


TABLE XLI—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
tal et ys wonvek 3,094 13022 33.0 1,908 61.7 122 3.9 35 a URE | 
15-24) 4h ras 755 640 84.8 114 15.1 —_ — — — 
D5 SA ieee ees 747 208 27.8 514 68.8 12 1.6 9 5 
35-44 ..... : 631 70 aie 531 84.1 22 B.S 8 1.3 
45-54 ...0e 468 54 11.5 381 81.4 22 4.7 11 2.4 
55 =640 Ee te. 281 30 10.7 223 79.4 25 8.9 3 et 
65 and over. 202 16 7.9 141 69.8 41 20.3 4 2.0 
Unknown ... 10 4 Tt 4 T — -- — a= 
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
OLA sn Bae eas 374 93 24.9 254 67.9 25 6.7 2 5 
Loca a ae eee 22 Za 7 1 t ae —— — oe 
25-34) y, | oe 81 34 Tt 44 T 3 f nase — 
Sor44 ces 88 16 Tf 71 Tf 1 T — — 
45-54 ...... 78 12 Tt 62 t 4 7 — — 
55-64. cececs 60 8 i 47 , 4 T uf x 
65 and over. 44 2 t 28 t 13 Tf 1 7 
Unknown ... 1 — — 1 f — oo os — 
NEGRO 
Otel apne sk vs 16 11 Tt 4 tT 1 tT — _ 
Do O4 Als uted She 6 6 T a — _ —_ — _ 
MOSS vt olsas 3 2 7 1 Tt — _— —_ —_ 
OER e cuat 4 3 7 1 7 — — — — 
Cah ae eee -— — — — — — — — — 
Do-64: Ghaw es Z — — 1 T 1 T — _— 
65 and over. 1 — — 1 T -- — — - 
Unknown -— _— — — — — — — —_ 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
t Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


1920 Census 


SOURCE TABLES 


7 Incorporated Villages 


195 


Mountain Division 


TABLE XLII—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods 


ber 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 


oral Ss he. ¢ 2,955 
Leber, te a 818 
Et ae re 814 
Bona? eo 579 
A554 fades. 362 
oe ge ae 225 
65 and over. play 
Unknown ... 6 


ForREIGN-BoRN WHITE 


PRD Ere | s 223 
L524 Wad ache 24 
Bama 4 Who's ies 36 
Seg Oe ae ey 
B5~54 "bh c's 48 
Lee ee eee 30 
65 and over. 28 
Unknown — 

NEGRO 

Vi Ae 2 
Loree es cc. o- 
BASE ee ere 1 
© Ue ee ee ae —— 
45-54 ...... — 
DOSOF ed ee _— 
65 and over. 1 
Unknown — 


Total * 
Num- 


Single 

Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
704 23.8 
524 64.1 
117 14.4 
33 aoe 
20 a5 
5 2.2 

2 1.3 

3 T 
21 9.4 
13 T 
7 

Tt 

Tt 


—_— 


Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber Cent. ber Cent. ber Cent. 
1,955 66.2 255 8.6 39 its 
285 34.8 5 .6 4 5 
656 80.6 Zi a 12 es 
513 88.6 29 5.0 + Y/ 
Ze 76.2 54 14.9 12 ahs) 
158 70.2 58 25.8 4 1.8 
65 43.0 81 53.6 3 2.0 
2 T 1 T —_ at 
161 72.3 38 17.0 3 Ns) 
10 T 1 T — —_ 
32 T 2 iF _ _ 
Gp T 2 T 4 — 
38 T Z T 1 Tf 
20 T 8 T a - 
10 T 18 t — me 
2 Li — —_ —_ _— 
1 i — — — — 
1 T — — —— — 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
t Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


1920 Census 


Age-Periods 


NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
Total 


eee reece eeosen 
eeeeeee 
eoceresnesese 
ere er ereeee 
eeereeereseoe 
eeerreseeee 
eoceerere reese 


ere eee reese 


Total 


coe e ere ee eee 
eeeereee 
eeoerereceeeee 
e@eeserseseee 
eoereeeerese 
ererereecoe 
eeeeeesese 


Hsranduover: «cs. 
Unknown 


Total 
Number 


18 Incorporated Villages 


TABLE XLIII—AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY NATIVITY, 
COLOR AND SEX 


Number 


10,305 
1,089 
2,022 
1,650 
1,544 
1077 
1,136 

852 


Pacific Division 


Male Female 
Per Cent. Number Per Cent. 
50.0 10,306 50.0 
5.3 1,056 yal 
9.8 WAS 10.5 
8.0 1,764 8.5 
a5 1,596 7.7 
6.2 1,266 6.1 
535 1,020 4.9 
4.1 775 3.8 
3.4 645 Aye | 

cal 9 c 
59.8 1,023 40.2 
6 7 ‘3 
3.6 84 fe 
5.1 94 Bed, 
10.3 176 6.9 
12.0 217 8.5 
10.4 149 5.9 
8.8 132 eZ 
8.7 161 6.3 
re 3 a 


196 


Age-Periods 


eee eter esee 
eee eee 
eee eres eos 
eee eeeees 
eee sees eos 
eer esreres 
eee er reese 


eer eeease 


65 and over.... 


AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


Total 
Number 


. 


Unknown .,,.... 


TABLE XLIII (Continued) 


Male 
Number Per Cent. 
61 Lene | 
3 2.6 
15 12.8 
13 bh | 
4 3.4 
8 6.8 
vf 6.0 
6 ~ | 
5 4.3 


* Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


1920 Census 


18 Incorporated Villages 


Female 
Number Per Cent. 


56 


_— 
| NANNANNNOMN 
_ 
tn UT et OV DO NI 
= em STO OO W 


Pacific Division 


TABLE XLIV—MARITAL CONDITION OF MALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * 
Num- 

ber 

NATIVE-BORN WHITE 

LL ORALORN u's chee 7,194 
D7 WN A a 1,650 

Bo SHO as e's 1,544 
S54die oe. 1,277 
Ab = San eta, 1,136 
55-64: Tides 852 

65 and over. 709 
Unknown ... 26 


FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 


OLA 140.) sie chee 1,413 
LS=24 ise au, 130 
LOKSA Wiehe ae oe 261 
Se. Me ae 306 
45-54 ...... 265 
SOR O4 pine ahels 223 
65 and over. 220 
Unknown ... 8 

NEGRO 

Ota Ware see sees 43 
ale a ace 13 
DUA «inthe bale 4 
Ro eee Salen Sara 8 
45-54 .....2. i) 
55-604 Wine aoe 6 
65 and over. 5 
Unknown ... —_ 


* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 


Single 

Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
2,402 Ses 
1,431 86.7 
473 30.6 
197 15.4 
£52 13:3 
91 10.8 
53 735 

5 T 
401 28.4 
103 79.2 
107 41.0 
81 26.5 
50 18.9 
45 Z0e2 
13 5.9 

2 T 

16 T 

il T 

1 Tt 

1 Tt 

2 a 

1 T 


t Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 


Married 

Num- Per 
ber Cent. 
4,322 60.1 
206 125 
1,023 66.3 
1,015 79.5 
894 78.7 
658 Jive 
517 72.9 
9 Tt 
863 61.2 
26 20.0 
146 56.0 
209 68.3 
198 74.7 
146 65.5 
io 61.4 

3 T 

24 T 

2 sf 

7 T 

7 T 

3 T 

4 tT 

5 Tt 


Widowed Divorced 
Num- Per Num- Per 
ber Cent. ber Cent. 
346 4.8 108 a5 
8 5 2 my 
21 1.4 26 1.7 
47 3.7 17 1.3 
67 5.9 23 2.0 
70 8.2 32 3.8 
132 18.6 7 1.0 
1 T 1 7 
130 9.2 15 1.1 
1 8 _ —_ 
5 1.9 3 1.1 
12 3.9 4 ies 
13 4.9 4 ict 
30 13.4 2 9 
68 30.9 es 1.4 
1 T napa — 
2 T 1 7 
1 T 1 T 
1 T — — 


SOURCE TABLES 197 
1920 Census 18 Incorporated Villages Pacific Division 


TABLE XLV—MARITAL CONDITION OF FEMALES BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, 
NATIVITY AND COLOR 


Age-Periods Total * Single Married Widowed Divorced 
Num- Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per 
ber ber Cent. ber Cent, ber Cent. ber Cent. 
NATIVE-BORN WHITE 
PURE ia ala tein 2a 7,075 1,655 23.4 4,430 62.6 871 BZy34 5 DES 1.6 
M24 TO oat 1,764 1,175 66.6 559 31:7 il .6 16 ‘ 
25-54 ite oes 1,596 285 17.8 1,236 oy Bs: 54 3.4 21 iss 
S546) G45 bs 1,266 84 6.6 1,061 83.8 99 7.8 21 1.7 
AS —S4 lx. oles. 0 1,020 55 5.4 786 7d 146 14.3 aS Se 
55 =645 ie a's 775 38 4.9 510 65.8 205 26.5 22 2.8 
65 and over. 645 16 PS 275 42.6 352 54.6 2 Le 
Unknown ... 9 2 T 3 t 4 7 — — 
FOREIGN-BORN WHITE 
PLOta lps stelste «ads 932 96 10.2 669 71.8 161 Wie: 6 6 
MOM 24 ents cite os 94 48 b 45 7 1 7 —_ — 
Ab a3 4s vars clate 176 17 9.7 155 88.1 4 FAV — a 
<)ope E  S ae 217 13 6.0 196 90.3 5 ees 3 1.4 
B54 os aes 149 9 6.0 119 79.9 21 14.1 _ — 
55-64 fee bie 132 7 5.3 77 58.3 45 34.1 3 2.3 
65 and over. 161 1 6 75 46.6 85 52.8 — — 
Unknown ... 3 1 T 2 T — — — — 
NEGRO 
wc ON es 42 10 7 24 f 7 i) 7 
Ae ae oe 15 9 T 6 T _ — — 
PAR gs Caras ea 7 1 T 6 T — — — —_ 
oe” ee 2 —_ — 2 Tt — _- — oo 
45-54 .....- 6 _ — 4 t 2 tT —_ — 
ES I SR 6 ~- _ 4 Tt 1 T 1 7 
65 and over. 6 -- — y T 4 T —_ — 
Unknown — — — — -- — — — oa 
* Total includes persons whose marital condition was not reported. 
f Per cent. not shown, base less than 100. 
1920 Census 155 Incorporated Villages Six Divisions 
TABLE XLVI—OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION BY SEX 
East West 
Class of Middle South North North 
Occupation Atlantic White Colored Central Central Mountain Pacific 
MALES 
% % % % % % % 
Pmeiculture ©) dec. cons oe cem 8.6 14.8 22.6 11.4 15.1 16.1 25.8 
Extraction of Minerals .... Ye =f <3 2.0 9 8 6 
Manufacturing f ......... 47.5 Dheo 46.1 37.8 30.4 31.0 32.0 
TPRUSOOLTATION |." s. Gs cadens.» « 137 10.1 11.9 11.6 12.9 15.2 10.9 
MT OCHON cole tve wits iaiiciein postere he Wi 28.3 4.1 PA ss: 23<3 19.8 LS 
Public Service} ...céocsae 1.4 2.9 V1 1.9 7, 1.6 ia 
Professional Service ...... ay 7.8 23 6.4 6.8 6.1 5.6 
Personal Service § ....... our aed 10.2 4.3 5.8 6.0 4.8 
CPERSCME? SadGs ee Rone des oo 3.9 4.9 is 2.9 3.1 3.4 35 


198 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XLVI (Continued) 


East West 
Class of Middle South North North 
Occupation Atlantic White Colored Central Central Mountain Pacific 
FEMALES 
ASriCUItYTe: sn tsdie sessed oes ss 6 25 8.3 9 7 £2 3.8 
Extraction of Minerals .... — — — — _— —_ _ 
Manutactaring To 2. obese xe 35.9 24.0 5.9 16.8 9.3 8.4 10.3 
"Transportation Vc oae. hye ov 3.6 4.2 s | 4.3 5.0 Les 5.0 
WPLAMEME EE Ht amaslcte ot cae ais 6.4 14.8 C7 11.4 Laud 1335 14.1 
Public Service. $5 33-440.. Ye dipst | — 123 122 22 + 
Professional Service ...... 16.4 24.9 4.2 22.4 29.4 24.6 22.5 
Personal Service § ........ 24.9 14.2 80.6 28.6 31.1 28.0 30.5 
Clerical cates eek < tcsirceiti 11.8 14.2 ra 14.3 11.0 16.9 13.0 
* Includes agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry. 
~ Manufacturing and mechanical industries. 
t Public service not elsewhere classified. 
§ Domestic and personal service. 
1920 Census Six Divisions 


TABLE XLVII—ESTIMATED AGE-DISTRIBUTION OF THE OPEN-COUNTRY 
POPULATION BY NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX * 


Age-Periods Native-Born White Foreign-Born White Negro 
Male Female Male Female Male Female 
Mippie ATLANTIC 
% % % % % % 
WnG@er Woon siete 8.2 8.0 ii A 5.0 4.4 
BaeclEe ais erecsis & eeisteete 1.0 14.1 1.8 2.0 9.7 9.6 
Bae heen We ehere ine 9.6 7.9 4.9 4.6 10.8 9.4 
PASE AY: UA neo ie Sern ets 4 6.4 5.8 14.4 wR ae | 9,1 7.9 
SOSA BAe Babee euatted 5.4 4.7 16.3 10.5 8.9 a 
Ab =SAN ENS one costs iebees 4.5 2.9 ib Wat} 6.9 5.9 4.3 
B5-OFM Siecs it oo aint sin aes 2.8 1.9 Rey) 3.8 2.9 1.9 
GSeanNdOVveracs cic cele eke ip 3:0 2.9 197, 1.2 
SouTH 
Underv5 0.) jac. cniess 7.3 7.1 We 6 6.6 6.6 
DSTA oe tats ews uae set 14.1 13.4 4.5 4.0 14.6 14.4 
1 Sash Peeters ts tolepeeeerca te 9.8 9.3 8.7 Sys 9.7 10.6 
2 5A SA eolats erie abies 6.5 6.3 OAS 6.8 Bae 6.4 
EME NS URL Ea oe 5.5 5.0 12.0 6.9 4.9 5.2 
ASS Ardee Ba ae eerie Ste 4.1 33 9.9 5.9 4.9 3.3 
S55 G4 cise si lee! «i 2.6 2.0 Tod 4.1 25 1.6 
65 ands OVEr e554 04505200 ie? 6.5 3.8 1.8 1.4 
East NortH CENTRAL 
Wunder? 54 Seesceces 6.6 6.4 ail fil 4.7 4.9 
Sala ae Ba ic getae eee 12.9 12.0 137 1.6 10.7 9.3 
TAA A kets cteiele ats 9.4 8.0 4.2 SF 10.1 7.6 
QOS AG ais ce. Sie 6 @ielere ate Fhe” 6.6 9.9 7.3 7.8 6.7 
Yar ek CO Ca BY die ee ae 6.2 5.4 13.6 9.1 TE 4.8 
AOE SAWALS welt scare 4's 5.0 4.0 11.6 8.0 7.0 4.7 
B56 Wis ais cts letee ates 3.4 225 9.6 4 4.3 Oia 
65 /andlover .44e%as. ces) 1.9 8.8 6.2 4.2 2.8 
West NortH CENTRAL 

Waders 155 tice a setts 7.2 7.0 . 1 3:7 a 
Bart iy ea orstee oie aie ate 13.6 12.9 St er 10.2 10.6 
TOS Z4AN FE hese ehedel die ce! aus 10.4 9.1 3.8 Qed, 10.8 8.3 
Dore SA alate cfirkrekéaiecs se 7.8 pon 9.0 5.7 8.9 6.5 
BoRAA DT UE A wltenelons 5.8 4.9 12.4 8.6 6.9 laps 
PAST Iey Si Sa teeh yd cape Ale 5 A 4.1 San 13.2 8.4 Tee 4.3 
DS ehE eins Sicisla nt 225; 1.6 5 Ne | 7.0 i er 2 
65handsovers 1. ces 1.6 iyi 9.0 6.7 3.9 25 


SOURCE TABLES 199 


TABLE XLVII (Continued) 


Age-Periods Native-Born White Foreign-Born White Negro 
Male Female Male Female Mgle Female 
MovuntTAIN 
OS Ea eee 8.7 8.3 a Ly 6 insuf- 
eC? | aA eI erie ee 14.3 13.6 4.1 4.1 a BY ficient 
TE Bd cin les wa'e's 9.5 7.9 7.4 5.1 25.6 data 
DSA Metal Oeie' Ciel saie toe 6 8.0 6.2 14.4 8.0 32.2 
Pe TULA. yore s+ 6 6.4 4.3 14.8 7.6 8.5 
Me er GMM, occ sities © s06 4.3 2.6 10.2 5.4 5.6 
BOE Moleded SaNehee 0.0 )e « 2.6 133 6.4 320 8 
Goma OVETa sis sits s 133 6 4.3 2.8 Aff 
PacIFIc 
Ob tre Gh Aeon are 6.4 6.1 ae 2} ED insuf- 
er liam ratorctetatacd oe, «a 86 12.9 11.6 1.9 1.8 4.2 ficient 
me2 at Bratetercre cierto oie oie 9.6 7.4 a5 Bez 6.6 data 
Bre eo Rueiiie nid & ahele's 8.0 6.7 14.2 6.6 18.0 
MEE, be wes oo a fede 7.6 55 15.9 7.9 16.2 
fe SANs isls.ds oie he sie 5.8 3.8 12.9 6.6 eed 
TIE Salers «4k 5h¢.0 ms 3.6 1.9 9.0 4.5 37 
Oo (anc, Over ...-... 2.3 9 6.3 a 1.6 


* Per cents. only given, since actual numbers were not calculated, being of no value 
for comparison. 
7 Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


1920 Census Six Divisions 


TABLE XLVIII—ESTIMATED MARITAL CONDITION OF THE OPEN-COUNTRY 
POPULATION BY 10-YEAR AGE-PERIODS, NATIVITY, COLOR AND SEX * 


Male Female 
Age-Periods Single Married Widowed Divorced Single Married Widowed Divorced 


Mippite ATLANTIC 
Native-Born WIute 


% % % 0 % % % % 
15 and over. 41.7 52.8 4.9 4 29.9 64.2 aA 2 
1 524 chk 90.5 9.3 2 T 71.0 28.5 0.5 -0 
SAGES PD eae 33.9 64.3 1.4 2 F532 82.6 2.0 a5 
Se ee 18.0 78.5 aU 4 957 Sel 2.9 “6! 
45=54 ..... 15.8 78.0 5.6 -6 8.8 83.3 an 4 
BaeG4 cidin bs 13.6 74.3 eZ 7 9.4 74.0 16.2 4 
65 and over. 9.8 60.9 28.4 -6 9.2 43.1 47.2 Ae 

Foreign-Born White 
15 and over. 24.7 70.0 4.9 ‘ql 10.3 79.5 9.8 ak 
Negro 
15 and over. 39.7 54.0 5:3 25 23.3 63.7 Take 6 
SouTtH 
Native-Born White 

15 and over. 34.2 60.9 4.4 3 25.1 66.3 8.2 4 
T= 2A Te. ele os 81.1 18.3 a) aa 58.8 40.1 8 2 
25-34) se ewd 22.8 75.0 1.8 4 11.6 85.1 ya j 5 
LY ere 9.4 S7ak 2.9 4 6.4 87.6 5.4 5 
AY, aa 74a 86.5 5.6 4 ay 82.3 11.6 4 
BD O4- 4) oles as 6.0 82.3 11.0 4 5.9 69.1 24.4 5 
65 and over. 4.9 70.3 24.0 4 ye 41.2 50.8 3 


200 AMERICAN VILLAGERS 


TABLE XLVIII (Continued) 


Male Female 
Age-Periods Single Married Widowed Divorced Single Married Widowed Divorced 


SoutH 


Foreign-Born White 


15 and over. 32.5 59.8 6.8 a8 12.5 74.0 13:2 Bs) 
Negro 
15 and over. 31.1 62.5 5.6 6 24.4 63.1 115 1.0 
Dies ied a EMR 76.4 22.4 8 1 56.4 40.4 2.2 rd 
Ae te Pars 18.1 77.6 Bat 9 9.5 82.0 6.9 1.4 
35-44 ..... 73 86.7 4.9 9 3.9 83.2 gM 1.2 
th: SF mee 3.9 87.7 Plea 8 Bef V1.3 18.6 ys | 
O64) ia sree 3.6 82.8 12.8 ¥/ 2.6 63.6 32.6 8 
65 and over. 3.5 71.0 24.5 Ay 3.6 35.0 60.6 4 
East NortH CENTRAL 
Native-Born White 
% % % % % % % % 
15 and over. 37.3 5x59 4.4 ay 25.4 67.5 6.7 4 
Pom AN cacy es 87.0 12.6 ts a 67.6 31.6 4 22 
29=34 Wee ys 29.5 68.8 1.2 4 12.0 85.9 1.5 aly 
BHAA hea he 14.7 81.7 2.6 9 6.7 90.1 3.0 -2 
4554 aks 12.7 81.1 4.9 9 5.9 87.5 6.1 als, 
BSG Ae ee 10.4 78.2 9.7 12 Ten 74.9 1730 sd 
65 and over. 8.4 63.5 26.5 ac3 Fed 41.9 50.3 .6 
Foreign-Born White 
15 and over. 25.0 65.1 8.8 5 rie 78.1 13.8 4 
Negro 
15 and over. 39.5 50.4 8.3 1.4 21.4 63.5 13.4 1.4 
West NortH CENTRAL 
Native-Born Witte 
15 and over. 41.7 54.1 3.3 6 28.8 65.4 Pes Be 
P5=24 bas 87.9 115 a as 68.7 30.7 3 ok 
CO=S4 OF es oe 32.6 65.8 1.0 4 12.4 85.8 1.3 > 
SE mAB odes 15.7 81.0 25 aa 6.5 89.9 3.0 4 
45-54 ..... 12:2 82.3 4.2 >!) Dye 85.9 7.7 8 
DS SeOaal y she ate, 9.9 79.2 9.5 iba aes: 74.4 19.2 -6 
65 and over. 7.2 66.5 24.7 1.0 4.3 43.8 50.8 a 
Foreign-Born White 
15 and over. 23.2 67.1 8.8 6 6.7 77.6 1502 4 
VBS 2A is va 90.2 9.3 3 + 45.4 53.4 -6 1 
25-34 whl aas 42.0 56.6 -6 aa 4.8 93.2 1.4 5 
044 OS t 21.0 rc | 2.8 -O 3.0 94.9 1.8 2 
45-54 .'...2. 14.2 79.8 5.3 -6 2.0 89.8 7.6 4 
Bt le erates 9.9 78.4 10.6 8 3.0 77.0 19.6 3 
65 and over. 8.0 61.3 29.6 8 3.2 42.2 Gk ey 4 5 
Negro 


15 and over. 40.3 50.3 Ta 9 22,6 62.5 13.4 9 


SOURCE TABLES 201 


TABLE XLVIII (Continued) 


; Male Female 
Age-Periods Single Married Widowed Divorced Single Married Widowed Divorced 


Mountain 
Native-Born White 
% % % % % % % % 
15 and over. 43.1 Le ee 4.5 9 24.3 69.4 avd 6 
OE an 88.6 10.6 ma =1 60.8 See 8 et 
POR S4 i de ein 34.2 64.0 1.4 4 7.4 90.4 1.6 AS; 
GB eaAN sek 20.7 74.9 2.9 ye 3i7 90.1 4.7 133 
Cio kee eae 725 73.6 7.2 1.6 2.7 S727 9:2 au 
55—64 > oS5 srs 15.9 67.1 13.6 iN | ase 69.6 26.1 1.0 
65 and over. 15.4 527, 29.1 23 4.1 38.3 57.0 od 
Foreign-Born White 
15 and over. 39.7 53.5 5.4 9 9.5 76.2 13.6 4 
Negro 
Omitted because of insufficient data 
PAcIFIc 
Native-Born White 
15 and over. 44.5 49.2 4.5 1.5 23.9 69.6 5.6 9 
in it. he a 90.3 9.4 T At 65.2 34.5 ao | 
25-34 . - 40.8 Bae 1.0 9 9.9 87.6 icf. Le 
SG e wate o 2050 69.6 aot Bue, 6.8 89.8 Pag | re 
BOA ak 23.8 67.9 yy. 2.7 6.4 85.6 753 0.6 
DO AORe te sid.c 20.9 64.4 121 Ze 4.8 F{ SES 21.0 0.8 
65 and over. 17.0 50.4 28.5 acU 4.3 38.9 5533 1.0 
Foreign-Born White 
15 and over. 42.1 51:3 sayy | 1.0 8.7 78.6 11.8 7 
Negro 
15 and over. 50.0 37.0 9.1 2.4 12.9 77.4 7.9 ies 


* Per cent. only given, since actual numbers were not calculated, being of no value 
for comparison. 
7 Less than one-tenth of one per cent. 


Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 


Bm ie | 
-. |r 


é 
: pe © 
| 


MARE he 
ee 


ne | 


ie 

i i 
i > a 

a 
ARs ce 


a 2 a 
a“ Py iy " fal 
- ; . a, ait 


oot aan 
OM i 





» Se 5S ane | Shay 
, fa a? 7) nv) Piva 
| om st 


oi 


Pe 


ak fat 


et 


tt 


aigetat 
ne oa oe 


blepeyy ig 


tee 


esheets 
Prinses 


ayo ane bare 


RET TSS = As i aa ities 
St PAdeeees : or Seay 


etn 6 
anesiNieas on out : 
ae Babin 5 forces Pin rtttet Setyg 


Bynes anya irate, ; ahaa Sere ze eran Sree Sattaiptetatete ot en net i Acie ; ; : 
shes t ‘ “ ae s : arenes e et Roar Se : St Par b 
Tee ie : Ss ike : sheers eo eet - > . sory aetna eRe PAT ech nh r rahe 

ss spracnmets ; pir Bie : rea Oran est Reto eres ineecerte 
m cefip inte Beth S a0 palms % ian = 0 i = o > xf ate peg tet rd insets . . : i & 
nacrant 3 ; : 4s - fa feacn toca tmone rp tects ge PUES of - m . x . 
¥ ; Se ect 2 tie 5x cos : airs : 
ve teh = : piere ss ef t oy : tind 
Nar ewket paces See aa “ : Wap inate . : ats = * - 





